The "crying jag," the "meltdown," the "breakdown," the "raging," the "losing it"

Just a suggestion...

It doesn't work to hype Clinton's every little emotion with hyperbole. It's easy for people to review the actual 'event' on their own now, and when they realize how much fuss was made over virtually nothing, they MIGHT get pissed. They might see a double-standard. They might even take it personally, having been subject to unfair double-standards themselves. And in response, they might want to defend Clinton, and themselves, and other women.

So my suggestion is, if you don't want the slightest indications of emotion to have an impact on elections, stop trying to use them to bash HRC.

isn't a grave emotional breakdown?

I mean, what if she starts wailing while holding the nuclear football?

(which is the subtext of all this garbage.)

I'M GOING TO RESPOND TO THIS!!1!

:eyes:

I look better in Salmon.

:eyes:

:D

You're talking about logic, but you're posting on DU. :-)

:yoiks:

one would think that they'd be smart enough to learn from their mistakes.

Quite an assumption, I realize....

Bush Sr. CRIED...other men have CRIED. Oh, but that's okay, as Tweety was explaining. Romney's REASON for crying was better. (AND HRC DIDN'T EVEN CRY!)

If this keeps up, I'm going to change my vote. As will other women. Keep it up, guys. Just keep it up.

Voting for someone because of emotional vulnerability is ridiculous. Please, if any of you are feminists and you want to support Hillary, great, but please do the other feminists around a favor and support her for her strengths, or you will be playing right into the sexist's hands.

Women can choose who they want to vote for, speak up for, or otherwise support, and decide based on their own reasons. Who are you to judge what's "playing into The Sexist's hands?" I think people can decide that for themselves.

(and I'm the primary Hillary supporter around here)

Thanks for telling me that, JohnnyLib2! :hi:

that's the same type of reasoning that people used when the voted for GW Bush because he was the one they would most like to have a beer with. I'm not denying the right for anyone to vote for whomever the wish for whatever reason they wish. I'm just trying to shock some people into thinking again. This is not a popularity contest or a decision for King or Queen of the prom, it's a very important decision that will effect all of our lives. To me feeling sorry, or outraged as a reason for voting is foolish, I'm a bit more pragmatic than that. And....I guess I'm entitled to my opinion too, or is that not allowed?

Sure, some people think it's shallow to vote for someone because they're inspiring, likable, charismatic, personable, etc. But it's not for them to invoke a cause -- the cause of Great Personalities or something -- and say doing so hurts that cause.

You said, "Please, if any of you are feminists and you want to support Hillary, great, but please do the other feminists around a favor and support her for her strengths, or you will be playing right into the sexist's hands."

That's a little close to "playing into the terrorist's hands." It's not for you to say what "the other feminists" would consider a favor! Please speak only for yourself.

Some feminists wanted a woman president from the start, believing the effect of that would, in itself, be significant -- raising awareness, breaking old stereotypes and limitations, teaching children a new model, opening minds. Others see what's happening in this campaign and are shocked into realizing how pervasive sexism is and how unaware people are -- and because of THAT believe this is a campaign worth fighting for that reason. Perhaps many consider all other things relatively equal (the top three candidates' policy proposals are nearly identical) any one of these factors, having to do with being a woman, tips the scale.

My only point: it's not for us to judge each others' decision about how to weigh the importance of a woman as (potential) president.

(Edited for typo)

Thank you.

It was a "don't get mad get even" golden opportunity - and I was very happy NH women took it. So, to me it was an empowering event not some pity gesture. And she's not even my candidate - but I cheered last night.

of one of my own. To stand up for the respect due a woman that the male candidates get.

I'm an Obama supporter. I'm thrilled he's doing great. He has a real shot at becoming President. But I heard an Af. American Republican journalist/pundit say that, altho he's Repub and supports someone else, when he saw Obama on giving his acceptance speech after Iowa, his DNA kicked in, and he couldn't help but be proud.

This is akin to how I felt when I saw HRC give her rally speech after N.H. I was very disappointed Obama hadn't won. But as I watched her speech, saw her and Chelsea lock eyes for a long moment...my DNA kicked in, too. I was very proud of my gender. It was an historical moment, and she earned it, while at a disadvantage to all the male candidates. I knew that she'd had to work harder, longer, be smarter, and esp. watch her behavior because she was female. I was proud of her.

If the other candidates aren't careful, if they knock her gender too much, it might cause the women supporters to rally to her defense. Maybe not many. But maybe enough.

Romney has not been criticized even once for tearing up the several times he has on the campaign trail. Bush Sr. wasn't criticized for bawling last year in front of a microphone. And the media went easy on Bush Jr. for tearing up several times during these last 7 years.

HRC deserves the same treatment. Nothing more.

The Clintons win because their operatives are as smarmy as the RNC. Yes, that's a hell of a lot to be proud of. :thumbsdown:

Just perhaps, more and more democrats will wake up to their duplicity and condescending sense of entitlement before it's too late? :shrug:

As a woman, I'm ashamed that HRC is held up as a role model.

... I supported her from the beginning and through all of the debates, too. I thought she did the best of all of the candidates. I think she's the better person for the job. The fact she's a woman is cool and it'd be awesome to have a female president, but that's NOT why I'm voting for her.

I agree that among undecided women, slams against her gender may very well get their back up. And heck, undecided men who don't agree with sexism might just be swayed too.

like a Stradivarius Violin with the full complicity of the "bought and paid for" corporate media.

HRC's Campaign and political insiders are MARRIED to the corporate media.

But don't take my word for it, ask Rupert Murdoch about this "waltz of the journalistic spinmeisters? :eyes:

If the American People elect "The Clintons" you can bet there will be constant strife and legislative gridlock. Perhaps exactly what we deserve as a nation if we fall for such BUNK. :(

"...That was it?"

guard. Having four, younger married daughters, this really worries me. My girls get it though. One of them said to me some of this is very overt, but most of it is covert. I am baffled that some can't recognize even the most outrageous. Gloria must be sad to see that this has been lost on so many younger people and by the looks of it some older ones too.

to manipulate the American People's feelings just before an election?

Edwards showed emotion during the New Hampshire debate, when he claimed to have the courage to fight corporate corruption because it was personal with him and it was barely reported, if at all. When Hillary Clinton showed emotion a day two later claiming it was personal the corporate media synchronized their reporting on all three broadcast cast networks simultaneously to lead off the evening news and then The News Hour with Jim Lehrer led off with it as well.

MAYbe if they'd been showing HRC over and over again saying, "She's so real, she really cares, this will really help her" people would have said "F that" and voted against her, or at least let it have no effect.

The problem is, the media uses her every show of emotion -- indeed, her every feminine and even just HUMAN trait -- to bash her. It was shown to manipulate people away from her, and to add to their list of reasons why nobody likes her, why her campaign is floundering, how badly it's floundering, etc. It was either "phony" and "manufactured," or it was real and showed how she's "weak" and "can't handle the pressures of the presidency." It was also mischaracterized as her feeling sorry for herSELF for losing Iowa, which wasn't the case.

When people actually saw the clip, many were shocked to see how much ado this all was about nothing. And the contrast with men's show of emotion -- as you pointed out, it's given no play, or spoken of as "passion" -- pissed many of us off.

opinion that the corporate media had abandoned her.

After the vote I heard Stephanopolous say her biggest margin of votes was with women over the age of 65. I would be willing to bet the largest segment of the population still getting their information solely from the corporate media are people over 65.

Furthermore I believe Edwards made an emotional connection with the people during the debate when he talked of it being personal, that was his finest moment during the debate and it was ignored by the corporate media because their interest is first, last and in the middle protecting corporations at the expense of the American People and the reporting on Clinton showing emotion claiming it was personal (and the reporters used that word) was done to quell Edwards momentum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2628324&mesg_id=2628772

The stat about women over 65 doesn't necessarily mean a thing in relation to this incident and the media hype over it. That'd take a separate study to figure out.

Nobody has a patent on the word "personal." And if she DID think, "I'm going to use the word 'personal' tomorrow," this is a campaign. It's hardly out of bounds.

I really don't think the msm is worried about Edwards. If they are, why would they go out of their way to slam HRC with this non-story?

I also differ with you on that "non-story", as a slam, I viewed it as non-stop sympathetic coverage and it led the news on all the networks simultaneously.

I saw it as exploitation and trashing.

the debate, that was the perfect emotional touchstone and the media knew it. I have no doubt it was sympathetic.

I don't see it that way at ALL.

I saw the debate, and I didn't need the media to tell me Edwards and Obama (especially Edwards) appeared to be "ganging up."

I believe Edwards spoke what he believed to be the truth and the corporate media began spinning. The ganged up on Clinton meme went well with the other meme they promote, that if you're against corporate corruption and domination of the government you're angry or a harsh populist without them actually analyzing why that should be.

Richardson isn't a front-runner and isn't making news on ANYthing.

Every little "attack" in a debate isn't going to get attention. Criticism and contrast are what they're supposed to do.

to criticize and or contrast bears scrutiny. Edwards was certainly in the running having come in second in Iowa, Richardson attacks him and nothing is said.

about it on several threads..."How smart Edwards is " "They have a secret deal" "VP or AG?" and other sweet and happy thoughts...
And you all thought that the debate will put Edwards on top because of the "priceless expression" he sported during "the moment". When the polls came next day you said "it's not counting the debate!"
I forgot about all that until I heard this NH voter who said she called all her friends DURING THE DEBATE (not the spin) in shock at the two men ganging on the woman.

If they were 'ganging up' on a man would they have been so shocked and outraged? If they were ganging up on a male candidate they didn't support would they be so shocked and outraged?

wasn't criticizing Clinton, although I believe he was speaking what he thought was the truth. His best moment was speaking of having the courage to take on corporate corruption because it was personal with him, the corporate media ignored that part.

The corporate media spun the meme of him and Obama ganging up on Clinton followed up a few days later with her personal or emotional moment, that's was the perfect touchstone I'm referring to that he media used to manipulate the people.

This assumption that everyone is manipulated by the media gets tiresome.

the night or two before the primary election on all networks simultaneously leading the news on ABC, CBS and NBC, later that night it led The New Hours with Jim Lehrer.

With me, what gets tiresome isn't the assumption that people can be manipulated by the media, it's that they are, on a consistent basis and to deny that is to deny history. Not all the people, but enough people to make a difference and the corporate media know it.

I looked at her - unflattering - photo - with nasty headlines - on THREE TABLOIDS - side by side - and said "Disgusting!" The man screamed at me with an anger I am still wondering about: "So, don't buy it if you don't like it"
My enemies should get such "sympathy"

:shrug:

was now hurting Obama with it - too bad - because Obama himself was smart enough to keep out of the mess.

To me personally, those words are proof of a sexist attempt to portray a "hysterical" woman.

Go, Stephen.