Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Tomorrow | Currently Hanging »

Monday, February 4, 2008

Clinton Tears

posted by on February 4 at 10:24 AM

Connecticut edition.

RSS icon Comments

1

getting out the emoboy vote

Posted by mackro mackro | February 4, 2008 10:27 AM
2

Her friend of 35 years teared up first. Try not getting verklempt when your friends are already so. Plus both candidates have been running nonstop for days.

Posted by big Sven | February 4, 2008 10:32 AM
3

Isn't it suspiciously surprising that she conveniently tears up when a close vote is only days away?

Geessshhhhh Could this be anything OTHER than calculated?

Can you smell the desperation?

Posted by Hillary will stoop to anything to win | February 4, 2008 10:33 AM
4

PLEASE, Hillary being calculating? PLEASE!! I am sure they are real tears. LOL!!!! HA HA HA HA!!!

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | February 4, 2008 10:34 AM
5

I'm not sure if I'm being serious or facetious with this comment but:

what a cold bitch.

Posted by Fonky | February 4, 2008 10:40 AM
6

Seems like just 28 days ago the same thing happened in New Hampshire.

Hm...

Posted by Ziggity | February 4, 2008 10:44 AM
7

*yawn*

Posted by ru shur | February 4, 2008 10:45 AM
8

This is an ominous pattern. As President, how often are we going to see Hillary roll out the tears? Once per crisis? Whenever she's feeling tired? Whenever there's been a particularly strong attack from the wingers? Or will she put the tears away until next campaign?

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 10:48 AM
9

Speaking of political machinations, I put an Obama sign up in my yard on a relatively high-traffic corner at 3 pm on Saturday. It was stolen by 10 pm.

Posted by Neau Mor | February 4, 2008 10:48 AM
10

wow eli, what a great non-story. you are officially an ass and every bad thing ECB has implied about you. she didn't cry the first time, and she didn't cry this time. i'm officially a clinton guy now. i can't believe how some people will stop at nothing to humiliate her and denigrate her years of public service.

Posted by wyatt | February 4, 2008 10:49 AM
11

I'm an Obama supporter and I think strategically-speaking putting Hillary as the nominee would be the dumbest move the party could make. However, I just can't support making these barely-a-tear moments newsworthy. Or the speculation "are they real/are they fake?".

Posted by Jason | February 4, 2008 10:56 AM
12

My default assumption is that you are bluffing when you claim to have switched to candidate Y in direct response to somebody's support of candidate X. It's just classic passive-aggressive blackmail. Saying "shut up!" in all caps makes you look like a child, but saying "you've turned me against your candidate" is also bullshit.

The only trick that's more stale is to constantly claim to be undecided or neutral prior to consistently attacking one side and defending the other.

Oh. And threatening to vote Republican if your candidate doesn't get the Democratic nomination. That's a bullshit bluff too.

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 10:56 AM
13

there is no story here. tears of pride, prompted by a friend's kind words, are much different than tears of self-pity.

Posted by brandon | February 4, 2008 10:57 AM
14

I bet Obama wishes he could add tears to his own stagecraft. His "inspirational" mode would benefit from a little welling up every now and then.

But he's smart: it would feel better to him, no doubt, but he knows he'd lose a lot of his men (and women who want a "real" man) if he did. Not to mention lose the chance to denigrate Hil's welling-up routine.

Posted by tomasyalba | February 4, 2008 11:04 AM
15

@12 Have to disagree with you there. It's called a backlash. If a lot of people who support candidate X are assholes, candidate Y starts to look a whole lot bettter. Seems perfectly logical and normal to me.
The other two points I agree with though.

Posted by wyatt | February 4, 2008 11:08 AM
16

elenchos, you don't exist. you're just my double login. you're my sock puppet. while i have no way to prove this i'm going to say it anyway.

same argument for "bluffing". why arent you taking it at face value?

if there were a way to prove that i voted for a republican instead of hillary i would, but so far there isnt, now is there? so why question it?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 4, 2008 11:08 AM
17

BACK OFF. hehe

Posted by Amelia | February 4, 2008 11:12 AM
18

i do not give a shit.

Posted by max solomon | February 4, 2008 11:12 AM
19

even more of a non-story than the new hampshire town hall story. way to go!

Posted by josh | February 4, 2008 11:12 AM
20

anyone who says they're not voting for a candidate because his/her supporters on some random blog are a bunch of meanies, and actually follows through on that, is a childish fucking RETARD. you can quote me on that.

it's even more retarded than picking a candidate based on who you'd like to have a beer with. you're picking a candidate based on whose supporters you'd like to have a beer with. D-U-M-B.

Posted by brandon | February 4, 2008 11:20 AM
21

When Senator Clinton looks into Vladmir Putin's eyes, she cries.

Posted by Bub | February 4, 2008 11:30 AM
22

So what. Her eyes barely welled-up with tears two times. Perhaps it gave her some political advantage the first time, which she could not have predicted. She's not faking. It's obvious. You're an asshole if you think otherwise.

Posted by PJ | February 4, 2008 11:37 AM
23

I can't wait to see Hillary cry when Obama gives his inaugural address next year.

Posted by ghostlawns | February 4, 2008 11:46 AM
24
anyone who says they're not voting for a candidate because his/her supporters on some random blog are a bunch of meanies, and actually follows through on that, is a childish fucking RETARD.

Yup. It's equivalent to a little kid holding his breath until he gets what he wants. Why, the whining of Clinton supporters about this is .... it's ... it's enough to get me to vote for Obama! So there! Nyah nyah.

(The article? Didn't read it. Don't care.)

Posted by tsm | February 4, 2008 11:56 AM
25

@8... "ominous pattern"... really?

Posted by Give me a break | February 4, 2008 1:20 PM
26

Can anyone tell me with a straight face, after how she won New Hampshire after her tears, that she's not attempting exactly the same thing now?

Even if we accept they were genuine the first time, can you really honestly say, without a shred of doubt, that these tears aren't fabricated expressly because the ones in NH worked so well?

Posted by Patrick | February 4, 2008 1:48 PM
27

@26 - Sure seems that way to me. Real, that is. You and some others are far too critical. Do you know the pressure that she and other serious Presidential contenders are under? Well, let's compare it, for example, to the Superbowl players (who I would argue don't have even a small percentage of the pressure that Presidential candidates do). They cried. Did we all rise up with vitriol and hatred? No. Your spite seems to be based in misogyny. Get over it please.

Posted by Sarina | February 4, 2008 2:23 PM
28

When Obama supporters complain about the Clinton surrogates' race baiting, we are told that Obama is too soft to stand up to the right wing smear machine. When we wonder if Hillary's crying episodes aren't making her look either unstable or cynical, then we are told to stop beating up on her so badly.

Seems to me the rules change depending on which candidate is being critiqued.

Posted by elenchos | February 4, 2008 3:19 PM
29

All I came away with was the impression that Ms. Clinton takes seriously the plight of disadvantaged kids. I am impressed by her work in that regard. Her friend was sincere. Sounds like she deserved the kudos. So what if her eyes water.

Posted by homage to me | February 4, 2008 5:44 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).