For a rounded view read the comments to the Erica Jong's post at HuffPost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/tears-fears_b_80679.html
(click below)

Some responses to Erica Jong's piece:

"If Obama had teared up it would all be over for him. there is a time and place to cry. tragic event,funeral,etc? sure. but to just break because you are stressed or your staff suggested "show you are human" not the cold calculated fighting bitch we all know you to be(by the way i like hill til her stance on the war)...is Hillary being Hillary..saying and doing what it will take to get the vote. she is REPUBLICAN light.anyone that votes for her because of her husband is making the same dumbass mistake that people made about bush jr and bush sr.i know its been driven in the ground...but lets vote for CHANGE...something new! what do we have to lose??????

***

For God' sake... Hillary just said that Putin "has no soul"... Now this is a candidate who allegedly has lots of political experience... For sure a comment like that makes a good start to negotiate with Russia......and the pundits deal with the silly tears issue...

***

No one said a woman cannot get misty. It's just that a lot of women saw it just plain fakery. All women do not have to support Hillary Clinton to be the first woman president.

Your misty eyed candidate voted to invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people. Have you mentioned or addressed that or do you think if you do, your candidate will get misty eyes and blame the boys for the war--

I can't see defending this stupid crying trick. She has never cried in all the time she was in the White House. Never. All of a sudden a black man upstart threatens her inevitability, raises as much money and she

CRIES!

Real strong woman that one.

Sorry don't want no president that gets misty or cries when there is stress. And Hillary the strong woman should not have played that card. Women, many of us, saw it as fake.

***

Isn't it ironic that Gloria Steinem says that Hillary can't win because she's a woman and then she wins NH BECAUSE she's a woman. Doesn't that disprove her theory. Gender has only been a plus for Hillary. If she were a man we'd never put up with her reinventing herself every time the wind blows. Hawkish Hillary. Weepy Hillary. Our "gal" that fights republicans Hillary. Warm and fuzzy Hillary. Mother and Daughter by my side Hillary. Use Bill. Don't use Bill. Blame Bill. Old people in the crowd. Young people in the crowd. Inevitable. comeback kid. The boys are picking on me. That hurts my feelings. Don't sling mud. Kindergarten. Crack Dealer. Muslim emails. Triangulate. Change is just a word. Change is my word. False hopes. Roll the dice. ENOUGH.

***

Last night in her victory speech, Hillary said, "I finally found my voice".

How does that jibe with her assertions about combining experience with being a change agent for the past 35 years?

How do you go on for that long, being the most visible woman in the world for much of the past 20 years, in a state of lostness about your own authentic voice?

I could see if she had just gone on the wagon, and was standing up in an AA meeting or something along those lines - but she's saying (along with Bill) that she's the MOST READY person in the world to essentially LEAD the world?

How could the person MOST READY to lead FINALLY find her voice, in the three days before the NH primary?

I mean, really Erica, YOU have your voice - and it's been loud and clear for a good long time. Gloria Steinem, ditto.

What was wrong with Hillary?

What was wrong with this: she has been living an ENTIRELY calculated public life, where everything she says and does is scripted by her attempts to present the right public persona - rather than simply being herself.

Of course, lots of pols do that.

But - we can't afford that sort of person - with that sort of character - at this junction in our history.

To go across the aisle, it's like the difference between Mitt Romney and John McCain. McCain, with all his flaws as a man and as a candidate, is a study in integrity: he spoke his truth even when it would cost him the election. He didn't try to triangulate on issues he felt passionately about (such as immigration and Iraq) - even if his stance cost him the prize of POTUS.

That's exactly what Hillary (and Mitt) haven't done. The lack of trust that gives her such high negatives - even in the dem party - is not PRIMARILY a gender thing.

Let's acknowledge that we truly need a person of CHARACTER, INTEGRITY and CONVICTION in the big chair - regardless of their plumbing or the color of their skin.

....

Read over 200 comments here:
www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/tears-fears_b_80679.html

Aloha Kavita

I agree the chance of change is precious. And the only thing that doesn't change is change. A minute waiting in traffic can take forever, where to a football player all it takes is a minute to win the game. Let's pray Hillary is a conduit of a now that is inclusive for change for all. love patty

Thanks Irvine, will do that in between my breaks. Should be an interesting read!

You are welcome!

***

I find these two articles particularly enlightening:

"Why Was Barack Anointed So Instantly?" by Caryl Rivers

www.huffingtonpost.com/caryl-rivers/why-was-barack-anointed-s_b_80743.html

***

"There's No Crying in Baseball -- Or the Race to be President" by Vicki Iovine

www.huffingtonpost.com/vicki-iovine/theres-no-crying-in-base_b_80703.html

***

About the authors

Professor Caryl Rivers is the author of many books, including Slick Spins and Fractured Facts: How Cultural Myths Distort the News; Indecent Behavior; a collaboration with Rosalind Barnett on She Works, He Works: How Two Income Families are Happy, Healthy and Thriving; and her latest book, Camelot, a novel set in the Kennedy administration.

Her television drama, A Matter of Principal, won a Gabriel Award as one of the best television dramas of the year. Professor Rivers contributes regularly to The Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Newsday, and other major U.S. newspapers. She is a frequent public affairs panelist on Boston television stations and is considered an expert on the Kennedy family.

***

Vicki Iovine is the author of the Girlfriends' Guides series of books, including the Girlfriends' Guide to Pregnancy and the Girlfriends' Guide to Getting Your Groove Back. She has also been a columnist for the Los Angeles Times and a contributor to Today and Good Morning America.

hillary will not be prez...god forbid!

she is unlikable and fony...she voted for the war...she was fooled by bushman...now she wants to replace him...she also voted for the patriote act and much more...she has not seen a bushman proposal that she didn't like...damn!

i say go take care of the bags under your eyes, old woman... and stop pretending...u are not for change but more of the same...

Here is some expert speculation on the Hillary 'cry' from politico. Click my name for full article.

(Experts say clues to the authenticity of Clinton’s response — that is, whether it was a calculated move or an off-the-cuff response — can be found in the small details surrounding the delivery of her remarks.

By that measure, says David Givens, director of the Center for Non Verbal Studies in Washington state and author of the book, “CRIME SIGNALS: How to Spot a Criminal Before You Become a Victim,” Clinton appeared genuine.

Givens — who studies facial expression, body movement and gestures — said the catch in Clinton’s voice, the stuttering, the pauses, the hemming-and-hawing and other reactions were all involuntary cues as to the senator’s genuine mood.

“I really doubt she could have scripted it or planned for it. It’s very, very hard to do on the spur of the moment,” Givens said.“It just looked real to me. I don’t think she’s that good of an actor, even though she’s a Clinton.”

Either way, says Bella DePaulo, a visiting professor of psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the actual authenticity of the response is less important than the perception of authenticity. “What’s important is whether it struck people as authentic,” said DePaulo. “It struck me as authentic.”

Dan Hill, president of the consumer behavior firm Sensory Logic, agreed.

“When you have an emotional response, it’s almost a wave breaking on a shore,” he said. “When Hillary Clinton does something artificial she controls it. This didn’t have abrupt starts or ends. It feels authentic.”
Hill, who specializes in “facial coding research,” said that Clinton’s expressions usually fall into one of three categories — the social smile (which fades almost immediately after appearing), the tightened lips and the smirk.

Monica Harris, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky, says different channels of communication — words, gestures, facial expressions and vocals — have different levels of controllability. For Harris, it was the halting voice that proved revealing. “It would be hard to act out that kind of vocal tremor,” she says. “I would probably trust that more than I would tears.”)

Ref. Bobby

Some of you are missing the point about Hillary's moment. It could be possible that her campaign strategists asked her to show her softness and could have played a role in her being unguarded and led her show her emotions publicly. Remember she is tough and never showed tears before in the face of so many disasters facing our nation.

As I said earlier,

Her crying is sincere, but the reason she cried does not inspire confidence: she cried because her ego had been damaged by the results in Iowa, and the reason she put forward for her sadness, something about wanting only the best for the country, was patently not sincere.

Ref. Bobby

Some of you are missing the point about Hillary's moment. It could be possible that her campaign strategists asked her to show her softness and could have played a role in her being unguarded and led her show her emotions publicly. Remember she is tough and never showed tears before in the face of so many disasters facing our nation.

As I said earlier,

Her crying is sincere, but the reason she cried does not inspire confidence: she cried because her ego had been damaged by the results in Iowa, and the reason she put forward for her sadness, something about wanting only the best for the country, was patently not sincere.

Here's a take by Bob Cesca on why the dramatic poll reversal happened; "Senator Clinton's Fearmongering Won The Day"

"Senator Clinton didn't win New Hampshire because she cried. Yet here's how the very serious cable news logic (which is on the same deductive level as, say, Pictionary) sussed out Tuesday night: Senator Clinton went all soft-serve on television; women turned out and voted for Senator Clinton; therefore all of the weak, hormonorific dames, who are suckers for a tear-jerker, won the day for the senator.

* Email
* Print
* Comment

Even if the crying wasn't a calculated news cycle grabber, narrating the entire victory as some kind of romantic chick-flick represents a misogynistic low point in non-FOX cable news punditry (FOX News punditry is quarantined within its own private phantom zone of hellish awfulness).

It's a low point for punditry -- not specifically in the context of Senator Clinton herself, but much more so in terms of the women of New Hampshire -- all of them -- who were unfairly painted as easily-manipulated hooples. (I'll get into the equally creepy "every black voter in South Carolina is waiting to see how white people vote" concept some other time.)

But let's rewind here. The presidential campaign coverage has been whipping the enthusiasm out of us for more than a year now. In that interminable length of time, Senator Clinton has been widely pegged as the frontrunner.

Being a shamelessly overzealous supporter of Senator Obama, even I will concede that there's no damn way anyone, however superhuman, could realistically reverse that trend in the span of what amounted to a long weekend between Iowa and New Hampshire.

Remember that Senator Obama remained in second place in the New Hampshire polls as recently as Sunday. Zogby, for instance, didn't really show Senator Obama in the lead until Monday -- a matter of hours before Dixville Notch. Couple that with an extraordinarily popular ex-president on the ground in New Hampshire attacking Senator Obama for that entire time, and you have to wonder how in the world Senator Obama came within a miraculous 2 percentage points (and a tie in terms of delegates) on Tuesday.

But wait. There's one other catalyst in Senator Clinton's victory which I believe carried more weight than is being discussed. It definitely carried more weight than the "crying."

When I wrote my endorsement of Senator Obama last month, I noted Senator Clinton's penchant for being a little too Cheney-ish to receive my primary season support. This week, she proved me accurate when she made with the Cheney-ish fearmongering just in time to scare the White-Mountain-sized-cockadoody out of New Hampshire voters.

--------------
"I don't think it was by accident that al-Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister. They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do. Let's not forget you're hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down."
--------------

In other words, the terrorists will surely attack us if a "less experienced" president is elected. So vote for Senator Obama if you want the evildoers to kill us all.

We've heard this line before:

-----------
"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." -Vice President Dick Cheney, 9/07/04
-----------

Or...

----------
"Whoever is elected in November faces the prospect of another terrorist attack. The question is whether or not we have the right policies in place to best protect our country. That's what the vice president said." -Cheney spokeswoman Anne Womack "clarifying" the vice president's fearmongering
---------

We know the record. It's not just Cheney. Karl Rove, Rudy Giuliani, and President Bush himself have all engaged in this kind of manipulation -- this kind of political terrorism -- to achieve their political goals -- especially when times and polls are tough.

"Shouting 'fire!' in a movie theater" has been an effective Bush administration strategy for many more years than should have been allowed by law. And when the tide was turning against Senator Clinton this week, she inaugurated herself into the elite He-Man Fearmongers Club with what was, for me, one of the most shocking moments on the Democratic side of the campaign. She even nailed the "it's no accident" Cheney line, i.e. "it's no accident there hasn't been another attack."

In an MSNBC exit poll, New Hampshire voters were asked the usual terrorism question: "How worried are you that there will be another major terrorist attack in the United States?"

73 percent responded "very / somewhat worried."

If the Clinton campaign didn't have similar polling information in hand leading up to the senator's ooga-booga! remarks on Monday, the senator's campaign strategists weren't doing their jobs. I would be shocked if the most poll-driven political campaign in the race didn't have New Hampshire data on terrorism. Nothing is said that isn't polled for effect. That's modern politics, especially within the Clinton Loop. Without the proper intel, she never would have stood up at that Dover rally in front of live television cameras and leaned on the jolly, candy-like panic button: a vote for Senator Obama is a vote for another terrorist attack -- because the evildoers are watching!

And we're somehow expected to believe that Senator Clinton's almost-crying, voice-crackling soundbyte catapulted her to victory on Tuesday? That's rich. As much as I'd like to believe that fearmongering doesn't work anymore, it just isn't possible that the senator's "al-Qaeda is watching" toe-monster moment didn't have a more significant effect on the election results than her misty "this is very personal for me" remarks.

The too-close-to-call results from Tuesday night indicate that this whole fracas is just about to get uglier (quoting Patton: "God help me I love it so!"). And, like it or not, they're going to smack us with the Fear Stick while leaning down hard on the panic button all along the way. Just keep a mental tab of who's doing it and how. Then vote against those candidates. Make them the scaredy-cats. Al-Qaeda might be watching -- but so are we."

www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/senator-clintons-fearmon_b_80782.html

A friend I was talking to just now said her 21 year old son asked her, "I wonder what is America more ready for, a woman President or the first black man to be the head of State. Maybe Barack Obama doesnt have the experience, but Hillary doesnt excite or inspire us. He does." Time will tell. Any thoughts on that?

Robert J. Guttman says it best: Yes We Can Still Vote for Real Change

Congratulations to Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain for their victories in the New Hampshire primary.

While the key word of the 2008 presidential campaign is "change", the two winners in New Hampshire are probably the least likely representatives of change running in either party.

Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign still looks back to the days of her husband's presidency. Many people feel that President Bill Clinton was a good president, likeable, and always entertaining and interesting in his views and actions. But, his presidency is over and it is time to move on and stop looking back to these supposed "glory days" of yesteryear. On reflection, with the year long impeachment trial and other matters that distracted the Clinton Administration from pressing public issues -- domestic and foreign, they were not that glorious.

Historians will not rank the two-term Clinton presidency as anything more than average. The former president is a brilliant politician but he has already had his two terms in the White House. There is no need to resurrect his presidency, as Senator Clinton appears to be alluding to in her speeches on the campaign trail.

For an election focusing on change the Clinton campaign seems to be looking back to her husband's presidency more than it should. The Clintons are fine public servants but enough is enough. Do we really want eight more years of an ongoing public soap opera? Maybe we do and the voters like this "blast from the past".

Many voters feel her campaign is more concerned with reviving and restoring the Clinton name and reputation than about looking ahead and providing needed change for the country.

While anyone running for the nation's highest office has to have a large degree of ambition, it appears to a good number of voters that Senator Clinton somehow feels that it is her right to become our next president.

Her emotional display before the New Hampshire primary was almost a sign of her disbelief that the American people did not share her view that she should be our next president. And, at the debate it seemed as if it never occurred to her that she might not be all that "likeable".

On the other hand, Senator Obama does seem to be a fresh face who really is promoting change. He is new to the national political scene and very short on foreign policy experience. Yet, if our nation is really looking for change, and is willing to throw the dice, and take a chance the Illinois senator might be what the country needs at this point in our history.

One gets the feeling that in his speeches Obama is talking about taking the country in a new direction, and conveying what is good for all Americans in order to unite our country. He would be a uniter.

Senator Clinton might feel she is an agent of change and a person who can unite America, but along with the experience she always says she has is also a lot of baggage from her past.

While Obama and even Edwards, in his shrill talks against corporate America, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson seem sincere in their remarks about changing the country for the country's sake, Senator Clinton's speeches seem more about the Clintons than about changing the country.

Exit polls from Democrats in New Hampshire indicated that Obama would be a stronger candidate against McCain, Guiliani or Huckabee.

Many voters are saying loud and clear that it is time to turn the page and change the direction of our country away from the Bush policies and to focus on the future and not get bogged down in what has happened in the past.

While the country says it wants change, the odds are 50-50 that Senator John McCain could capture the White House if he wins the GOP presidential nomination.

John McCain, a true public servant who has served his country admirably and speaks his mind even when it is not politically correct, is not an agent of change. McCain, who would be America's oldest president, and Senator Clinton, no matter what they both say, are not people who will embrace change.

They are both rooted in the past. It is good to have experience to govern effectively, but it is better to have a clear vision of what you want to do once you are in the White House.

The voters in New Hampshire obviously disagreed with my analysis so it is on to Nevada and South Carolina to see if Obama can keep his supporters fired up, and if Hillary brings out a new campaign strategy.

In this very unusual but exciting and historic presidential campaign, it is rather ironic that while polls show more than two-thirds of Americans oppose our involvement in Iraq, the GOP possible nominee John McCain is a strong supporter of our involvement in that war.

Stay tuned for the latest twists and turns in the 2008 road to the White House--they will certainly occur.

www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-guttman/yes-we-can-still-vote-for_b_80777.html

***

About the author:

Robert J. Guttman is the Director of the Center on Politics & Foreign Relations (CPFR) at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C. where he co-hosts a series of conferences on politics and foreign policy with the Financial Times newspaper group.

He teaches courses on politics, the media and foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Government.

Previously, he was editor-in-chief of TransAtlantic: Europe, America & the World, at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS, Johns Hopkins University. As editor-in-chief of TransAtlantic Magazine, Guttman gave talks on EU-US relations to interested groups in the United States and Europe.

From 1989 to 2003, Guttman was head of publications for the European Commission office in Washington, D.C. and editor-in-chief of Europe Magazine. He is the author/editor of the book Europe in the New Century: Visions of an Emerging Superpower published in 2001.

Guttman has been an adjunct professor of political communications at The George Washington University and an adjunct professor of American politics and communications at The American University in Washington, D.C.

From 1979 to 1989 Guttman was editor-in-chief, president and publisher of a company he founded, Political Profiles, Inc. Political Profiles published the first magazine in the world on presidential candidate George Bush in 1979. The company published presidential profiles on all the major candidates for president in 1980, 1984, and 1988. In addition, Guttman wrote the Political Profiles Report, a newsletter on national and international politics featuring in-depth interviews with world leaders.

Guttman tried to capture the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate from Indiana in 1986. He has been a writer/researcher for presidential candidates in 1968, 1972 and 1976 and a communications consultant for various national political races.

Dear Kavita,

I liked your post, especially the "wait" and "don't jump to conclusion" part.

I'm not that involved in the details of these candidates and their political moves. But what is most interesting to me is this: do people realize that the outcome of the elections will depend on the process happening in themselves?

Americans (and the rest of the world too for that matter) could actually stop watching the news and focus solely on their INSIDE. The only relevant question is: What is happening in ME?

We are so used to look outside to find out what is happening. Nothing is happenign out there, it's all happening in here. To know where this whole election is going we need to ask ourselves: are -MY- judgments and fears about gender, colour, age, money, etc, dissolved? Am -I- different from the old world? Do -I- want change? What kind of change do -I- want? The process is happening within every individual and will result in a president.

It's not about what the candidates do or say, they are clusters of energy with a certain kind of vibration which we automatically recognize within us, and they are also evolving together with everyone else. So the question is: how high a vibration are we all, including the candidates, capable of reaching before election day?

I hadn't thought of it before, but one can watch even "elections" on the inner screen :) And if there is any "race" going on anywhere, it is the one of our own evolving consciousness.

"The only relevant question is: What is happening in ME?"

Vintage Aurora!

The ONLY Spin is INWARDS

#14 "The ONLY Spin is INWARDS" You've lost me on that, Irv. Was it purely for Aurora, or would you care to elaborate to all of us just what you are communicating?

Dear Kavita,

As always your writing makes me think long and hard. No way I will comment on American politics! There is one thing though that hits me strongly. For the life of me I cannot understand all this analysis of her crying. According to some reports I have seen they say the tide turned in favour of HRC because she very nearly shed some tears. The oldest democracy in the world making a choice influenced by a candidate's ability to shed tears, somehow makes me feel a tad diasappointd.

Another interesting aspect of this is that I heard about this incident while browsing through newspapers around the globe and this item was front page news on most western media. In India, the paper that I read, tucked it in on page 7 or 8 (International news). Maybe there's some message in that? I dont know.

Hi again K,

I was amazed to read the author say ""Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life,.."

I beg to differ. Just want to share some thoughts on this. Was discussing status of women in Indian society recently and someone, as often happens, came out with the bizarre statement that women are better off in India becaus so many women have made it big in politics in this country. As against this the US was even now furiously debating whether a woman could even get nominated for election as the President. I find it bizarre because its rubbish. Yes, many women make it to the top in politics but that is hardly a yardstick as far as I am concerned. What about the hundreds, at least, of dowry deaths, female foeticide, molestation cases, bias in education etc etc etc. The condition of women in rural India is actually no condition I would like my children or granchildren to experience, its a disgrace. The US and the west are far far ahead and need to be emulated not held in scorn. You live in a country where women actually have freedom to follow careers, make their own choices, marry whom they want and move about freely as equals. I think that is far, far more important than whether Hillary Clinton gets nominated for President by her party.

Regards,
Dara

a couple of people pulled this quote out and sent it to me. I don't know about the final outcome but people sure are having a field day writing provocative stuff- read on

"Gloria Steinem wrote in The Times yesterday that one of the reasons
she is supporting Hillary is that she had "no masculinity to prove."
But Hillary did feel she needed to prove her masculinity. That was
why she voted to enable W. to invade Iraq without even reading the
National Intelligence Estimate and backed the White House's
bellicosity on Iran.

Yet, in the end, she had to fend off calamity by playing the female
victim, both of Obama and of the press. Hillary has barely talked to
the press throughout her race even though the Clintons this week
whined mightily that the press prefers Obama.

Bill Clinton, campaigning in Henniker on Monday, also played the poor-
little-woman card in a less-than-flatterin g way. "I can't make her
younger, taller or change her gender," he said. He was so low-energy
at events that it sometimes seemed he was distancing himself from
her. Now that she is done with New Hampshire, she may distance
herself from him, realizing that seeing Bill so often reminds voters
that they don't want to go back to that whole megillah again. "

It is a fact that Obama's slate is clean and Clintons have a lot of baggage. But unfortunately, so far, it was them who attacked him negatively and not the other way round, yet.

Kavita:

Nice post!

Personally I am predicting Obama to be the next US President. That is what I think will happen.

As regards Hillary .. and Bill Clinton's support here are my thoughts:

1. Someone once said that successful people become their own caricatures! A person works hard with some principles and that WORK creates an IMAGE of him/her. At some point, the IMAGE starts to dictate what he/she should DO! Societies behave the same way. Americans today have become their own caricatures! It is no longer good enough to be a human being with the normal emotions... one needs automatons in the Rambo makeover.

Looking tough and being tough are two different things! Oh well..

2. I saw one performance from Bill Clinton in support of Hillary and he was at his vintage best. 5 points clearly articulated and thru that made a mincemeat of Bush's policies.. and articulated some very tough to explain concepts in very lay man terms.. and as Hillary's initiatives! What more do you want from him?

He is the best communicator in US politics.. PERIOD! I mean no one is even close to him! All this slamming him and creating this bill vs hillary feeling is republican nonsense!

Either way - Obama or Hillary.. history will be made this time. What happens thereafter is another matter!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

Whoever wins, I hope the Clinton's don't look like sour losers. I hope Hillary has it in her to support Obama sincerely, i.e, if he does win the nomination. She is no longer the "inevitable" that she was. Sure, the Press has been unfair to her but Obama has held his peace so far. It will be interesting in the coming weeks.

Desh, I agree with both you and Irvine. After Iowa, I saw a lot of sour grapes from Clintons. They were obviously frustrated but there has to be some grace under fire. I dont know if anyone of you have seen Michelle Obama speak. That woman kicks ass big time.
They are two Bill Clintons when it comes to oratory in the Obama camp-Barack and Michelle.
And while I would love to see a woman President, and Hillary is a woman of incredible intelligence, I dont know why every time I speak with women or even people in general, many tell me they find something about her campaign that doesn't add up and they feel she isn't brave enough or honorable enough. They are tired of seeing the same old same old stuff. Its as if America is becoming like Pakistan the kennedys, the bush dynasty and then maybe now the clinton dynasty and it isnt going down too well, but it could also be that I'm in republican state.

I thought Barack Obama was amazing when I saw him speak at the Democratic convention and I havent changed my mind about either what a class act the couple is, or the fact that this country really needs someone with a clean slate. Is he young and inexperienced, obviously, but is he supersmart and has the integrity and intelligence to learn on the fly-absolutely.

No matter how much time the pundits spend on analyzing the candidates' record to death, their flaws, their strengths, I have personally always found out that emotions, usually rule the way the general public votes. How else would you explain George Bush Jr's second term? Obama has fired the imagination of the younger generation, many of whom are bright articulate, hard working people. They are USA's tomorrow and I think they seem firmly on his side. And what's more mercifully unlike in the case of our current President, Obama deserves that support.

I think Bill Clinton is one of the best arsenals Hillary has, and the man has been doing his best, but is his best good enough to charm people to help her reach the white house.. time will tell.
and may the best candidate win.. without having to resort to tear tactics :) Just kidding!
I felt her tears were for real-she wasnt play acting. Her whining to Matt Lauer on the Today show post Iowa was pretty real too. It didnt get my vote, but I think she has worked long and hard to get where she has, and we must give her credit for that.

Whoever wins, this is going to be one hell of a rivetting journey!

Kavita: Well said.

The funny thing that I see about the US elections is that in my view - and completely philosophically speaking based on basic (foundational) principles of democracy..

.. where WILL of the people (immaterial of what they finally end up deciding) is/should be paramount!

But when I see the concept of Electoral COllege, I feel that basic principle is inherently violated! The only rationale to have an EC rep decide which way the state goes is "Maybe people may make a mistake - which I (with a power-Halo on) will rectify'!

Now, that can work if the Halo is the real deal.. but sometimes as in 2000, these Haloes could be less than original - like those Chinese goods. That is when the democratic practices start floundering as they did!

I think there is too much of pride but the US democracy has been shaken in the last few years.

Let me put it like this: IN any democracy, there are some strict laws and some unwritten "gentlemanly" principles that go around to run in good faith. If there is preponderance of the former - then the system is rigid and red tape is tremendous (like India); on the other hand, if the latter is more, then there is too much flexibility!

Now, the importance of the unwritten rules and their longevity depends on the practitioners. If they work on good faith, such rules survive. If not then a legislation arrives and puts that ball on the formal law court - rigidity increases.

In the last 8 years, MANY (and critical!!) unwritten rules have been dealt a deadly blow.. such that a legislation may be necessary.

I dont see many Americans disturbed about this simple but very very far reaching change!! That is even more worrying!

Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com

we are living in an age of change!

dick and bushman can go duck hunting after january...imagine...no more dick in DC after january...whoahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha!hehehehehehe!!!!

Edmund #15 I just saw your comment.

"The ONLY Spin is INWARDS"

Mystics tell you there are two ways to experience the Oneness: The Inward Way -- going towards the void-- to experience nothingness in One . The Outward Way -- trying to experience the ALL in one. Bot are utilized in the Eastern mediation techniques. Both work. But the important thing is doing both at the same time, which is paradoxical that perhaps opens a door for liberation -- call it enlightenment. Like you Spin politics, philosophy and spirituality can also be spinned, and this Spin has to be constantly broken down towards nothingness...by practicing the inward way...to eventually make it null and void. This you can control. You cannot control the Spin masters of the world, you have to accept them as a whole -- good or bad -- in the outward way.

It's disheartening to see all the negativity be focused on Mrs. Clinton from what I would suspect are well meaning and well educated adults. It's one thing to have an opinion about someone, but it's another to write nasty opinionated comments only meant to destroy another person's image. Why is that necessary? Whether it be President Bush or Senator Hillary Clinton. As a 25 year old male my parents raised me to respect others especially women because regardless of what some might think, women are essential to our survival and our well being.

Hillary may not be your choice...but instead of attacking her character why not discuss the issues. I know my parents nor my grandparents would ever approve of me talking about a woman or man the way some talk about Hillary.

It's called being civil. Words are things and you should be more responsible with your use of them. Don't level attacks at someone for going to war when you go to war using your words on a daily basis.

Peace

This is an excellent post by RJ Eskow. Sums it all up! A Must Read.

Strange Bedfellows: The Clintons, Karl Rove, and Erica Jong (Erica Jong??)

Posted January 11, 2008

The past week has been a play in three acts. First the Clintons went after Obama with some old-fashioned Swiftboating, together with what some observers considered subtle race-baiting. Then Karl Rove turned their lie into a "Republican talking point," garnishing it with a more nakedly racist pitch. Lastly, author Erica Jong issued a Rovian condemnation of Hillary's critics as sexist (all of them, apparently) and topped it off with a little white-liberal bigotry. I want a woman President, too - but not this way.

Act One

I keep hoping Hillary Clinton will change direction, because she's a good Senator and this country needs a woman President. But her cynical (and self-destructive) choices have been hurting the country since that war vote in 2002, and last week's New Hampshire campaign was a new low.

First came the Swiftboating. Her campaign spread flyers around the state containing a lie about Obama's record - one they already knew was a lie. Their claim that Obama had abandoned the pro-choice cause by voting "present" had already been disproved. NOW's Chicago director, a Clinton supporter, described the flyers as "offensive" and added: "I'm very disgusted at this tactic being used by the Clinton campaign."

We'll never know much this deception helped Sen. Clinton's come-from-behind victory.

What about the race card? Michael Eric Dyson says they played it when Bill said that Obama would be "a roll of the dice." Prof. Dyson said this was a play on the racist stereotype of African Americans as gamblers. I'm inclined to give Bill the benefit of the doubt because of his strong civil rights record. On the other hand, Prof. Dyson would be far more attuned to racist pitches than a thickheaded white guy like me, and a Southerner of Pres. Clinton's age would certainly remember all those "roll dem bones" stereotypes.

It certainly looked like racial condescension to me, however, when Hillary dismissed Martin Luther King by saying that Dr. King's "dream" only became real thanks to Lyndon Johnson. That's not only wrong, it's offensive. To get a sense of how hurtful this statement could be, imagine the reaction if Obama had said that "Susan B. Anthony was a good talker but it took Woodrow Wilson to pass the Nineteenth Amendment."

Some would argue that this distorted reading of history is to be expected from a candidate who includes her time with the Rose Law Firm as part of her "thirty five years" of "making change," while dismissing Obama's years of community organizing as "inexperience." What she seems to be saying is that black people didn't change this country - their white patrons did. If this is all unintentional miscommunication, as some will argue, then she should apologize immediately.

But remember: This all came after Clinton supporter Bob Kerrey's Muslim-baiting comments about Obama. If it happens once, it might be an accident. But when it keeps happening it's deeply troubling.

Act Two

Now Karl Rove has come out and given us a preview of the Republican playbook should Obama be the nominee. Remember when the Clinton campaign was slamming her critics for repeating "Republican talking points"? Apparently, now she's writing them. Less than a week after those New Hampshire flyers went out Rove writes: "(Obama) had a habit of ducking major issues, voting 'present' on bills important to many Democratic interest groups, like abortion-rights ..." So Clinton pushes a lie and the GOP picks it up. Thanks a lot.

Rove's race-baiting isn't subtle, but here's a translation for cloistered liberals who have "never met a racist": When he says Obama is "lazy" (what he means to say is "shiftless"), he's reinforcing a racist stereotype. When he claims that Obama "bluffs" and makes "misstatements" or "exaggerations," he's appealing to bigots who believe black people are inherently dishonest.

Here's a classic code-talker sentence: "His trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard, and capped a mediocre night." "Trash talking" is perceived by white racists as both a black slang phrase and a common form of minority behavior, while whites have seen African Americans play "pickup basketball" in a thousand ghetto movies. (And bonus points to Karl for "cap," which is hip-hop slang for shooting people. Is he that smart? We report, you decide.)

When Rove says Obama offers "soaring" and "inspirational" rhetoric that isn't "filling or "sustaining" or "substantive," he's playing on the white stereotype of blacks as superficial "jive talkers." Rove adds (without "substantiation") that "Clinton won the beer drinkers, Mr. Obama the white wine crowd." The word that Rove is subliminally reinforcing here is "uppity."

When he adds that Obama looks like a "vitamin-starved Adlai Stevenson," the portrait is complete: Obama's a shiftless, uppity, fancy-speakin', trash-talkin', basketball playin', anemic white-boy wannabe. Throw in a talking point or two from the Clinton clan and the pitch to white racists is complete.

Act Three

Then, in a bizarre twist, Erica Jong weighs in with a strange screed called "Seeing Sexism." As far as I can tell, Ms. Jong is suggesting that everyone who opposes Sen. Clinton's candidacy is at heart a sexist, regardless of their reasons and no matter whether they're male or female. They are all, according to Ms. Jung, just like the Egyptians she imagines opposing the female pharoah Hatshepsut for being "too fat" or "too shrill."

I doubt she would knowingly take cues from Karl, but nevertheless that's classic Rove: The bad people hate my candidate, so anybody that doesn't support her is a bad person.

"We don't know how a female President would act," Ms. Jong writes. I'll leave that sentence to be parsed by those who have experienced sexism firsthand. But wouldn't it have been offensive if it had been written by a man (say, Lawrence Summers)? So why is it acceptable from Erica Jong?

But it's her no-doubt-inadvertent bigotry that is awkward, to say the least. How's this for "seeing racism"?

"Perhaps Hillary will appoint (Obama) to the Supreme Court where he can counter that embarrassing Clarence Thomas."

Get it? The nice white President will appoint a good Negro to counter that nasty Negro - the one who can't do his job and is "embarrassing" his race. Because, after all, nobody knows more about handling colored help when they're screwing up than a wealthy liberal.

I fear Ms. Jong will have to live down these words for a very long time.
_________

As I said, I'd like to see a woman President, and moving statements like "Can I Have a Dream?" illustrate some of the reasons why. I know that American women will benefit from the example of a female leader. (Men will, too.) But these 100 American women haven't benefited from Sen. Clinton's leadership. They died in a war she voted for and continued to defend for years.

Don't the women of America deserve better than that?

********

RJ Eskow is a writer, business person, and songwriter/musician. He has worked as a consultant in public policy, technology, and finance, domestically and in over 20 foreign countries. He also held senior-level positions at several major insurance carriers and has served as CEO of two companies. He is experienced in finance, strategic planning, marketing, data analysis, and IT. He specializes in health and medical issues, and has also worked in film and music. Eskow currently provides consulting services and is developing a start-up company.

Link to the original post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/strange-bedfellows-the-_b_81184.html

(you can follow a few hyperlinks in the author's post)

It's OK with both men and women to cry in public or in privacy. People cry for many different reasons.

But shedding crocodile tears is not OK.

And crying in self pity is not OK too.

Hillary, the sly, did cry for the both. So it is not OK.

So no body should vote for her, ever.

Per #28

As a southerner myself, I can understand why RJ Eskow

would say such things. And to do it out loud at HuffPo?

Very brave! But then again, I'm new to that site.

I avoided it for a long time. Arianna has it right again today.

"Just say no!" to any pollster who wishes to spill your guts.

In small towns it is wise to keep your political preferences to yourself.

You can easily see why your vote is a private affair.

#26 Thanks Irvine, I am with you now.

a woman may be prez of USA...some day...but not this year...this is Obama's year, baby... all the way! how much do u wanna wager? damn!