Hillary turns on the tears again. (1 Viewer)

[SaintsFan11]

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?

Yeah, it's not like any male candidate's hair has been an issue.

 

[peytonknows]

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.

Well here are some stats for you. In the video posted she used the following words numerous times within 1:20 while addressing these people. Sure it's not exactly all dealing with her campaign but wow...


I/I'm= Thirteen time

me/my= Six times

Total= Nineteen times within actually about 1:17. That has to be some sort of record and I realize that it may be a different context, however she was talking about her ideas and goals and what she had done in the past and will continue to do in the future.:dunno:

Maybe someone else can do another one of her videos dealing with a more "important" or a bigger topic and see what her average use of the word I/me is, because hopefully it can only go down from here.

 

[DavidM]

Yeah, it's not like any male candidate's hair has been an issue.

Nor drawing fire for some emotional response -- see Howard Dean, '04 -- whose shrieking yelp drew a lot of negative attention and made him the butt of jokes.

Anyway, here's a couple of takes on emotion in politics, both referencing Clinton and Dean. One a blog, the other an ABC opinion piece:

http://rhetoricalquandries.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-emotion-suitable-for-politics.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=4097786&page=1

And a blurb from an article dissecting Dean's campaign downfall:

EMOTIONAL. Paradoxically, as private as he is, Dean is capable--perhaps too capable--of showing emotion. When I interviewed him for Newsweek last year, he broke down in tears when I asked him about his lost brother. I had never seen a politician do this: he turned beet-red and sobbed. He told me he had had counseling. It was touching, but, in retrospect, a harbinger of his angry reaction to his loss in Iowa--a fateful moment to say the least.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/52654

 

[JimEverett]

Its these overrations to every little thing Hillary does that garners sympathy and makes her an attractove candidate.
Obama doesn;t get a fraction of the overanalysis of his every step that Clinton gets. Its unbelievable.
George Bush got misty-eyed when he talked about the troops in the State of The Union. Where are the freaking criticisms there, the microscopic analysis? Romney has cried several times on the campaign trail - to barely more than a whimper from the press corps.

Does the simple fact that she was First Lady absolve the difference of coverage and attitude between Clinton and Obama? Or is it something else?
And all this talk about the great Clinton political machine is right-wing created myth. Bill was a minority President both times. Hillary is trailing a man who spent formative years in Indonesia studying the Koran and who a few years ago was a state senator in Illinois.

 

[SaintsFan11]

Nor drawing fire for some emotional response -- see Howard Dean, '04 -- whose shrieking yelp drew a lot of negative attention and made him the butt of jokes.

Anyway, here's a couple of takes on emotion in politics, both referencing Clinton and Dean. One a blog, the other an ABC opinion piece:

http://rhetoricalquandries.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-emotion-suitable-for-politics.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=4097786&page=1

And a blurb from an article dissecting Dean's campaign downfall:

EMOTIONAL. Paradoxically, as private as he is, Dean is capable--perhaps too capable--of showing emotion. When I interviewed him for Newsweek last year, he broke down in tears when I asked him about his lost brother. I had never seen a politician do this: he turned beet-red and sobbed. He told me he had had counseling. It was touching, but, in retrospect, a harbinger of his angry reaction to his loss in Iowa--a fateful moment to say the least.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/52654

And wasn't Clinton significantly buoyed by her initial "emotional response"? There was also the guy in '84 or '88 who appeared to be crying in defense of his wife and was skewered as emotionally unstable.

While there may be a double-standard for women, it is, at the same time, a double-edged sword.

Also, much of the criticism of Hillary is not in regards to her emotional state but rather her sincerity. Hardly anyone accused her of being too emotional. The fact is that people just don't trust her, and that has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her past.

 

[Sabine]

=peytonknows;914923]Well here are some stats for you. In the video posted she used the following words numerous times within 1:20 while addressing these people. Sure it's not exactly all dealing with her campaign but wow...


I/I'm= Thirteen time

me/my= Six times

Total= Nineteen times within actually about 1:17. That has to be some sort of record and I realize that it may be a different context, however she was talking about her ideas and goals and what she had done in the past and will continue to do in the future.:dunno:

Maybe someone else can do another one of her videos dealing with a more "important" or a bigger topic and see what her average use of the word I/me is, because hopefully it can only go down from here.

Just one side? Couldn't find a similar setting to compare Obama's word count?

How about one of the debates?

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xo0OReiyzek&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

I'm not dissing Obama for using the words "I" and "me". It's appropriate for the setting, just as it was for Clinton in the video that started this thread. Side by side, I don't see a difference in the use of those words. That said, I can see why Obama would pound the "we" in all of his speeches. It serves him to do so. So what? I can also see how Clinton doing the same could hurt her. People will take "we" and turn it into "Hillary and Bill." I can see Obama's campaign advisers pushing him to use the word "we" as much as possible because of the psychological advantages. It's also not hard to imagine Clinton's advisers pushing her to use the word "I" to promote her as an individual, independent of her husband, and not just Bill's wife. But again, side by side, in similar settings, I don't see a big difference in their word choices.

 

[peytonknows]

Just one side? Couldn't find a similar setting to compare Obama's word count?

How about one of the debates?

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xo0OReiyzek&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

I'm not dissing Obama for using the words "I" and "me". It's appropriate for the setting, just as it was for Clinton in the video that started this thread. Side by side, I don't see a difference in the use of those words. That said, I can see why Obama would pound the "we" in all of his speeches. It serves him to do so. So what? I can also see how Clinton doing the same could hurt her. People will take "we" and turn it into "Hillary and Bill." I can see Obama's campaign advisers pushing him to use the word "we" as much as possible because of the psychological advantages. It's also not hard to imagine Clinton's advisers pushing her to use the word "I" to promote her as an individual, independent of her husband, and not just Bill's wife. But again, side by side, in similar settings, I don't see a big difference in their word choices.

Actually what I said was that I took the video posted in this thread, not that I was going on a scavenger hunt for word counts in each speech that they give.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P3kOhjaujgk&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P3kOhjaujgk&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

This first couple of words in this video (The crying game part 1) kind of bother me, but I'm sure that's been beaten to death on this forum and I don't feel like searching.

 

[DavidM]

Does the simple fact that she was First Lady absolve the difference of coverage and attitude between Clinton and Obama? Or is it something else?

My vote is on "something else."

I'd suggest that part of the problem Clinton faces is that she often comes off as stilted and displays of emotion, laughter for instance, seem forced or poorly timed. She's drawn criticism for such in the past. IMO, Dole, Kerry, and Gore come to mind in a similarly mannered way -- stiffer personalities that emotional moments don't always play as well against.

So while it might be unfair, and perhaps we are seeing honest shows of emotion from her, I think it defies the image many have of her and leads to questions of sincerity or plays to the opinion that it's calculated and contrived.

 

[steltz02]

>>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

I respect that TPS.. I am really just begun to find my own political identity in the last 10-12 months or so. I consider myself middle left as well but not so much on the intellectual part, but it looks like I am in good company.

Georgia's primary is tomorrow, and I didn't register for them in time, but I am kind of glad.. I am completely torn between Hillary and Obama. When I find myself in a political argument with fellow democrats I always end up playing the advocate for Hillary, because it seems that no one else ever takes that roll. I don't think Hillary is evil or as conniving as people make her out to be, and she has some very impressive ideas which are generally in line with my ideals. I also believe she can make her ideas happen. I don't believe Obama is quite the savior that people are making him out to be, but I do believe that he is a unifier and an amazing orator.

I will be happy either way, but will be most happy with both of them on a the same ticket no matter which way it goes. I'm just hoping for a good game tomorrow

 

[DavidM]

Also, much of the criticism of Hillary is not in regards to her emotional state but rather her sincerity. Hardly anyone accused her of being too emotional. The fact is that people just don't trust her, and that has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her past.

Agreed.

 

[JimEverett]

My vote is on "something else."

I'd suggest that part of the problem Clinton faces is that she often comes off as stilted and displays of emotion, laughter for instance, seem forced or poorly timed. She's drawn criticism for such in the past. IMO, Dole, Kerry, and Gore come to mind in a similarly mannered way -- stiffer personalities that emotional moments don't always play as well against.

So while it might be unfair, and perhaps we are seeing honest shows of emotion from her, I think it defies the image many have of her and leads to questions of sincerity or plays to the opinion that it's calculated and contrived.

I think its one of two possibilities:

- she just isn;t good at it, or at least not as good as other polilticians. Politics today is all about image, and virtually every politicians falsifies in some way who they are. The best are so good at it that most of the people don;t even know they are doing it.

- she is sincere. Sincerity is often awkward.

My problem with the whole Clinton-Obama race is how Obama has remained essentially unchallenged. He is a media darling and is just not receiving any scrutiny. The coverage of Clinton is always slanted in a very cynical slant. Almost all talk of her is in the context of the political game - posturing, maneuvering, image, etc. Contrast that with the context of coverage on Obama.
IMO, this cheerleading for Obama isn't doing him any favors. Is his first true political test going to be running in the general election for President of the United States. That is amazing.

 

[TPS]

>>I will be happy either way, but will be most happy with both of them on a the same ticket no matter which way it goes. I'm just hoping for a good game tomorrow

I'm just hoping that by the time I get home tomorrow night, I actually remember to turn on the television. Gonna be a long Mardi Gras. :rock:

TPS

 

[JimEverett]

Also, much of the criticism of Hillary is not in regards to her emotional state but rather her sincerity. Hardly anyone accused her of being too emotional. The fact is that people just don't trust her, and that has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her past.

What about her past? That she has one and Obama does not? When you get in political fights where anything is accomplished you are going to open yourself up to charges of turning your back on your principles or whatever (partly explains the lack of Senators who get elected to the White House).
I find myself in the weird position of defending Hillary, but its mainly because I have a suspicion that we are making a big mistake going with an untested Obama.

 

[peytonknows]

Republicrats

 

[Sabine]

- she is sincere. Sincerity is often awkward.

That first video looked sincere to me. Looked like losing control of her emotions was the last thing she wanted to do. If she was faking, it's Oscar worthy.

But hey...What do I know? I've no doubt that some of you guys have an abundance of experience seeing women cry.

My problem with the whole Clinton-Obama race is how Obama has remained essentially unchallenged. He is a media darling and is just not receiving any scrutiny. The coverage of Clinton is always slanted in a very cynical slant. Almost all talk of her is in the context of the political game - posturing, maneuvering, image, etc. Contrast that with the context of coverage on Obama.

Yep, agreed.

IMO, this cheerleading for Obama isn't doing him any favors. Is his first true political test going to be running in the general election for President of the United States. That is amazing.

I disagree. It is serving him well, it's just not serving us well - not because he isn't qualified. I don't know whether he is or isn't. It just seems like the media is acting as though he's untouchable, but with Clinton it's a free for all. I don't think it's garnering her much sympathy. Too many are just cherry picking from whatever is printed or filmed to shore up their preconceived notions.