Here's an irrefutable argument that Hillary's "moment" was the result of a prior campaign decision:

Both sides of the debate about whether Hillary's "tearing up" was genuine or contrived are missing an obvious point: that after Iowa a decision was made by the campaign to "humanize" Hillary and have her show more emotions. This does not mean, however, that her tearing up was contrived. It means that she did not restrain her emotions in public as she had probably done many times in the past.

The "unlikable" Hillary was caricatured by the media as a cold, emotionless woman. Hillary supporters would obviously argue that this is not true. But if not, then why had Hillary never "teared up" in public before? It's either because she had not felt those emotions before, or that she did feel them but held them back, at least in public.

The campaign knew they had a major problem with Hillary's image, and it was probably Hillary herself who decided to to change that image by opening up more to the public. The campaign has said as much. There were plenty of examples of this decision in New Hampshire. At the debate she became visibly angry, more than I can remember her doing before. The format of her events were changed to have her lecture less and interact with the audience more by taking questions. Even the event where she teared up was her sitting at a restaurant with 17 voters (and numerous media onlookers) taking questions for more than an hour. And when she began to feel emotional when responding to a question, rather than restraining those emotions she expressed them (but perhaps she held back enough to stop from openly crying).

This refutes the argument made by Jesse Jackson, Jr. yesterday (which should have never been made) that Hillary never showed tears for Katrina victims or Iraq, only for herself. She may very well have felt emotional in the past, but she restrained them in public.

planned. I do not think that is what you are saying but sure comes across to me like that.

OR she's too much of both? Obama however is "passionate" and in him that's a GOOD thing.

American culture is still profoundly sexist.

making an argument that refutes arguments made by other Obama supporters, including his co-chair. I didn't say she was cold, I didn't say she was too emotional. I simply said to change the public's perception of her, the campaign decided to let her open up more in public rather than restrain her emotions, her "humanity." Which she did.

Who wouldn't be.

you've hit the nail on the head!

Hillary didn't cry. I saw the video, I saw no tears running down her cheeks, I didn't see tears well up in her eyes. What I say was a woman, no doubt exhausted from the pace she'd been keeping, take a pause in answering a question.

Many of the candidate's voices are dry and cracking as well. This is normal, they are speaking at high volume, and doing a lot of it.

Hillary is a Senator, which is enough pressure, and now she's got a campaign to do on top of that. She's not my favorite person for the job, but people are making way more out of this than there is.

She's human. Humans get tired, their voices crack, they pause to gather their thoughts and find the words they want to say. She's normal.

...factor for anyone on the fence who upon seeing that her tear ducks worked, then voted for her.

So she got misty eyed, so what!

Look at Hillary on the issue, on her votes, on her history - we know what that is.

Is John Q. Public so damn superficial as to allow a tear to decide whom they will vote for?

I'm not suggesting it was fake, only that it was unimportant relative to the big stuff - like the IWR etc.

If she tears up again it will be interpreted as calculating, or evidence that she's not up to the job. I know, it's stupid and unfair as all hell but that's the way it is. She can't cry again on the campaign trail. At least not the primaries. Maybe she'll get one freebie during the General.

Nothing is irrefutable, except that you don't know the meaning of irrefutable, milkyway.

What I found refreshing about the crying incident isn't that it showed emotion...it's that I heard her speak for the first time in a voice that didn't make my skin crawl. Her "campaign voice" is so grating, I can't stand listening to her.

Before you Hillary duffers go all ballistic on me, I want to make it clear that her voice has no bearing on my dislike of her as a potential president. It's her policies which nail that one. No, her voice is just bitter icing on stale cake. It's not the deal breaker for me.

.