FVHorn:

Nice analysis.

Hillary is my choice for President of the United States. She is simply the best candidate running in either party.

The fact that the Boys' Club is all a flitter over her success, makes the success so much sweeter.

Go Hilliary Girl, GO!

Consider the following pre-conditions:

1. Hillary is a conservative in blue clothes.
2. Hillary is a cold and calculating character.
3. Fox news is a conservative network.
4. New Hampshire is a conservative state where even the blues are purple or even red.
5. The MSM likes the status quo.

What would happen under these conditions?

Hillary would win in New Hampshire. Hillary would feign tears after Iowa, and it would only be shown on Fox. MSM would tout Clinton's red victory as a blue victory and overstate it.

Now, plenty of evidence exists to back the first pre-condition. She is hawkish even by Republican standards. She grew up Republican. She was a star performer as General Counsel for Sam Walton in Arkansas. She pushed her husband to the right while he was in office.

Evidence for the second pre-condition is not strong. She certainly appears to be cold and calculating superficially, and in all reports about her campaign tactics, working behind the scenes, etc. I recall a rumor about her that she would berate Chelsea when Chelsea was a girl and reduce her to tears to toughen her up. If this is true, certainly her breakdown episode is pure manipulation.

The third pre-condition is common knowledge and needs no discussion. The fourth and fifth are also factually based.

It is highly likely that Hillary is the candidate of the GOP, of the MSM, and that her failure in Iowa has Fox and others working overtime to prop her back up, including consenting in her emotional ploys.

Hillary as Democratic candidate would guarantee that the next President is right wing, a friend of corporations, a friend of the Pentagon, and ready to continue the current plan or even escalate it in Iran.

I don't like Clinton myself (far too "conservative"), but don't Americans have a more important set of criteria for determining their political representatives?

~

"If for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way." (Kevin Conrad)

I was pleased and inspired by Barack Obama's decisive win in the Iowa caucuses last Thursday. And between then and yesterday, I've been put off by the near-orgy of ageism and especially misogyny that many of his supporters have been engaging in. How ugly. (And "misogyny"--hatred of women--is exactly the right word, not the more polite, less accurate "sexism.") Hillary is not my candidate--Edwards is, for now--but I probably would have voted for her yesterday in New Hampshire, as a backlash not just against the arrogant, pontificating media but also against some of Obama's even more arrogant, pontificating backers. Anyway, Obama needs to be tested. Remember the rush to crown John Kerry? That turned out well.

I'm still appalled by that chilling cackle from some months back...

In a way Ruth is right but not in the manner she would like to be. Screw worrying about and focusing on HC's personal quirks which are manifold worry about her policy positions and how she intends to betray democratic voters once in office.

Ruth says the fact that Hillary is a cold calculating triagulator obsessed with her own political aggrandizement should be overlooked because people especially the wingnuts don't like her as a person either.

S
I have to laugh at the false dichotomy Ruth poses. It's as if one can't hate Clinton for her positions and her personality. I am in that category because I see how one is reflective of the other.

Apparently Someone forgot to tell Ruth the people who actually examine the issues...or even read well...anything let alone political publications like "the progressive" would never vote for HC anyway.

hirtsleeves,

Whatever it is your puffing on I want your to mail me some because that is some Mr. Bake-o shit. yeah let's vote for Clinton to show the corporate media a thing or two...LMAO.

Tonight! Midnight EST Fox News capitulates and goes off the air because voters cast their ballots for Clinton just to spite the fair and balanced network. Why don't you join the GOP while your at it. You know...show them baby killers at thing or two...douchebag.

I just keep waiting for Obama to actually say something. His mouth moves a lot, and the sounds that emerge sound pleasant. But I keep listening to him trying to hear him actually say something, and I just don't hear anything. Lots of drivel about hope and change and how we need to be united. But his lack of content or any real plans that would tell me that I should 'hope' to have a fair single-payer health care system, or that I should 'hope' he'd have our troops out of Iraq in six months, or many others are just missing. Combine that with his constant message that we need to have 'unity' with everyone in the nation leads me to believe that what he's really saying is that we need to stop opposing the conservatives and we need to stop opposing the corporations in order to create this unity. We damn well know they won't compromise, so apparently its us that have to compromise.

My feeling is that anyone who cares about the same issues I do and who votes for Hillary or Obama will find themselves out in the streets alongside me protesting a year into their administrations.

We know Hillary is the pro-war, pro-corporate government candidate. She's got a record of 20 years of being the DLC's poster candidate that she can't hide from, despite all the BS she spews trying to do so. Or any phony tears she sheds (per script) in a coffee shop. Elect Hillary and the Lincoln Bedroom and the White House will be for sale to the highest bidder (cash only please) just like it was all through the 90's. Watch the corporations screw you on health care and send your jobs overseas while she counts the re-election contributions as they roll in. Just like in the 90's.

Actually, it reads like Ms. Conniff has never been around an election before. Its not at all unusual for candidates to run very long days and nights before an election. A candidate staying up all night working dinners and late night gatherings and then starting the next day before sunrise meeting workers at a factory gate before going to a breakfast meeting with supporters is a pretty typical schedule the day of an election. That Ms. Conniff makes it sound like this is unusual in this election is a bit bizarre.

Actually, isn't it a predictably female tactic to break out the tears at a key point?

If a male candidate were to show tears when talking about the state of their campaign, they'd be clobbered in the media. This is more Hillary trying to play the gender card for like the 20,000th time. Isn't it the Hillary campaign that tries to constantly push the message that people (mainly women) should vote for her just because she's female?

Mitt Romney "looked nearly hysterical in his speech in Iowa". Please click on that link in this article and watch that U-tube clip because Romney looks totally calm and self assured. Don't bother clicking the "crack up" link for Hillary crying because the clip has been removed from U-tube.

Hillary's tears were clearly calcuated to "humanize" her. It apparently worked. Forget the sexist media who dumped on her. She played the sexist gender card that she needed, and it worked.

Hillary Clinton has the most experience, hands down, and also the most "contacts"--a few too many of which, are corporate "contacts." Nonetheless, she can start fast on day one. John Edwards has the most "fight."
Barack Obama has the most balance and the best possible face (literally and figuratively) to represent America to the world in foreign affairs and helpfully influence and advance progress for our minority subcultures (yes, Hispanic too.)

ALL of them, by slightly varying degrees, are more liberal (that is, respectful to individual citizens) than any Republican and we should hope one of them is elected and work hard to see that it happens.

Barack said "change." Hillary copied. John Edwards said "this is PERSONAL to me." Hillary copied--in her now famous emotion moment at New Hampshire. Hillary will continue to copy whatever good behaviors these guys put up. We'll ultimately decide between one of the two superior speechmakers (Obama and Edwards) or their fast-learning imitator. Electing any of them would be OK. Bashing any of them, so as to contribute to ultimate defeat by a Republican is not OK.

Barack's big win in Iowa may have been a statistical fluke. NH did not confirm, though Barack's loss there was MUCH smaller than predicted there a couple of months ago. Nevada and South Carolina will tell us more about which one the voters believe can best win.

"Actually, isn't it a predictably female tactic to break out the tears at a key point?"

CoMarc, I don't know whether Hilary's tears were calculated or not. However, speaking as a women, if I get upset or emotional about something, I cry. This is not a "female tactic" but something that I can't help. It seems to me that it's an understandable response to something that has upset me.

I'm tired of men pointing out that women are "too emotional." Men are judging women by a male standard because generally men don't cry as easily as women. I also reject the male notion that women are incapable of making rational judgements because their emotions get in the way. Maybe if men had stronger emotions about things they wouldn't make "rational" decisions that result in the death, injury and displacement of thousands of other human beings.

Maybe CoMarc should consider the idea that what is wrong with the world is not that women are "too emotional," but rather that men are not emotional enough!

The sexism charge is used cynically though when she is called into account for her record and claims she is being picked on or bullied by the boys. In addition she is defended by the same team of NOW league feminists, Katha Pollitt or Gloria Steinheim who, if not turning away from MrBill's behaviors that would have put any other male politician in hot water, they openly belittled at least one of the woman as "trailer trash". Sexism you say? What about leisure class liberal elitism?
Tearing up was one thing--and for a variety of reasons it may be genuine enough--but the Clintons again used it cynically to garner sympathy. Not only was there just a handful of supporters present--there were far more media filming and she notably used Edwards lines about it being personal and then the airwaves grabbed it as some soap opera performance tugging at the sachrine heartstrings. Same goes for her feeling being hurt act--all the while strutting like a big neocon cock of the walk.

As for her record--well she failed at healthcare--and her record reveals poor judgement--calculated for personal advantage from Bush enabling to causes like flag-burning or violent movies--or even triangulating on abortion. Just because she has been around doesn't mean her experience is stellar.
In the town I live in I hear these upper middle-class women and their what-about-the-children causes that think little of taxing the struggling working class out of their homes. It never seems to occur to them that shiny new toys--new football equiptment, cheerleaders outfits, new playgrounds in their neighborhoods impose a tax burden on the families of poorer children. What about those children?
Hillary strikes me as a what-about-the-children type.

Hillary uses the oldest female trick in the book. "When all else fails cry, and you will get what you want." And the stupid voters fell for it.

Boo Hoo! I can't believe anybody bought her crocodile tears. Doesn't anybody remember Bill's emotional machinations? Like other moments in her campaign, I suspect the question was planted and her "emotions" rehearsed.

She has been investigated for Whitewater and travelgate, she has watched Bill make an ass of himself and dealt with his infidelity on numerous occasions, has been savaged by the press and Republicans countless times, and it is being behind in the polls that finally brought a tear to her eye. What does that say?!

As for her 35 years of change. HA! If she wants to talk about her pre-political office history of change, lets look at her tenure on Wal-Mart's board of directors and Tyson's as well.

Ridiculous!

Hillary, Peloski and all the ones in our military have proven -- without a doubt -- that the American Woman can do anything a man can do, including treason, murder, butchery, looting or any other high crimes known to humankind.

I'll never vote for a murderer again in order to see a fictious "changing" of administrations.

The cheering by their supporters makes me want to puke my guts out.

I don't know if the truth about the 'tears' will ever be known, do we yet know the truth about previous candidates tears?

It seems to me what is more certain is the history of American Politics, where just about anything goes.

Given the money involved and the corporate penchant for protecting investments and the human inclination for believing that "winning" is everything, how could it be otherwise?

Were the Kennedy brothers shot down because they were raised Catholic, or because somebody bought an election? Or because others were manipulated into believing they were someone other than who they were?

It just seems that the entire US election process is a contest between vested money interests that will do anything that is required to win, especially if their research suggests that some accusation, regardless if it is 'true' or not, will have the desired effect.

Attitudes, prejudices, values, religion, gender, race, beliefs, morals, ethics, appear to be nothing more than hooks for the manipulators, to see how it will play in Peroria.

Whether or not Hillary cried is immaterial to the big questions. But the posters here claiming that it is a female "tactic" to cry betray their shallow relationships with women.

As to whether Martin Luther King or Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the civil rights gains of the 60s, the answer is: neither.

There were a lot of people working for civil rights, and a lot of people died for the cause. And we're talking since the Civil War. So, what caused the gains of the 60s?

After WW11 there were liberation struggles around the world, many supported by the Soviet Union. African Americans here renewed their struggle. The hypocrisy of US government propaganda around the world speaking of "freedom" contrasted to the abysmal treatment of Black people here was getting embarrassing. The Soviet Union was using the discrepancy with great effect. The US ruling class decided to dismantle the most obvious signs of American apartheid. Lyndon Johnson was in office at the time.

We have listened to the self-congratulation since. It reminds me of the boasting about the Civil War. The claim is that the US is the only country to have fought a war to end slavery.

Well, half of the country did. The other half fought to keep it. And the rest of the world ended slavery without a war at all. They just outlawed it.

The fact that the most outrageous forms of American apartheid were ended at great personal cost to many people (especially Martin Luther King) doesn't seem that praise worthy to me.

i'm a new hampshire voter, and i voted for hillary for 2 reasons. 1) because the right wing hates her so much and 2) because she's female. i recognize that those aren't very good reasons for voting for anybody, but who says you need good reasons?
i wasn't going to vote at all, but in the end lost my nerve and went to the polls.
change is not going to come from the top. it doesn't matter who's driving the damn frieght train, it's still a freight train, and the tracks are a permanent part of the landscape, and go in one direction only. the more obama was presented as a 'rock star' the more the whole carnival started to look like what it is, a 'weapon of mass distraction,' detonated every four years.

The first comment from mirf59 nails the election. Mirf seems to have figured it out largely on his own.

The late Walter Karp gives a framework for similar clear thinking about American two party politics. He divides the political world into, not left vs right, not R vs D but rather "Hack" vs "Reformer". Hillary is clearly the Democratic party hack and Obama only slightly less so.

Where Karp gets interesting is talking about the fact that the hacks of both parties have more in common with each other than with the reformers of their own party.

The paramount goal of the hack is to keep reformers out of power.

The hacks of both parties will work together to keep reformers out of power. Look at the Rs and Ds working to keep Perot, Nader, out of the debates. The two parties co-opted the debates from the League of Women Voters in order to control the content.

In "Indisspensable Enemies" Karp refutes all the axioms of politics you learned in 9th grade Civics and replaces them with the Civics of the Smoke Filled Back Room.

Karp was a protege of Hannah Arendt and Bill Moyers and Chomsky liked him very much.

Asking whether someone is a hack or reformer will bring most of politcs into sharp focus. Kennedy, Clinton, Lieberman, all hacks. Jimmy Carter, Paul Wellstone, Howard Dean Bill Bradley are all reformers.

I think John Edwards may be the viable reform candidate in this race.

Bo

"i'm a new hampshire voter, and i voted for hillary for 2 reasons. 1) because the right wing hates her so much and 2) because she's female. i recognize that those aren't very good reasons for voting for anybody, but who says you need good reasons?"

That's it. We're screwed.

Hikerwoman,

Boys learn in Junior High and High School that girls sometimes cry dishonestly to manipulate them. That's a generalization which does not apply to all women, but does apply to some.

The evidence that Hillary is guilty of it is, in my mind, somewhat weak. Basically, it's that she seems like a cold and calculating person who would loathe displays of weakness and sentimentality. If that character mythology is true, it would make her tears of the dishonest and manipulative variety.

It's not that it is wrong to cry, it's about honesty and character, and what Hillary Clinton as Presidential candidate is willing to do to get elected -- and by extension what that says about how she would govern in office.

Generally, I agree with the spirit of your criticism. Back to Ancient Greece and probably before, there is an ongoing battle between those governed strictly by reason, those strictly by passion, and what is the proper balance.

My personal opinion can be explained by analogy. If my life journey is the voyage of a ship, I'm going to steer it with my heart, but I'm going to operate it with my mind. The heart plots the course, but the mind executes and makes it happen.

Wake up idiots. The tears were phoney. So were the "Iron my shirts" protesters. Paid for by the Clinton Campaign no doubt. Say or think whatever you want. There isn't an ounce of sincerity in either Bill or Hillary.

Check out Wall Street. Stocks have been getting hammered since Obama won Iowa. Today they are up. Why? Because their bought and paid for candidate has made a "comeback".

HIKER WOMAN: Good points. The key missing emotion is EMPATHY, the ability to walk in someone else's moccasins. We know that most candidates represent the status quo and launch campaigns on the basis of big money's interests and "largesse."

MIRF 59: Good rebuttal. As to your navigational analogy, you might agree that much of history (the past 3000 years) has allowed the male perspective/male power to operate the wheel. There are interesting theories pertaining to a very different style of sentience embodied in women, as living symbols of the Divine feminine. There has been precious little input from women with respect to law, government, academe until about 100 years ago. The emphasis on macho posturing, war/weapons, force first, might makes right, ego/individualism over community, art, the ways of peacemaking, seeking shared ends rather than atomic ones... well, a basis assymetrical paradigm has been such that now all our systems face collapse. There is a wisdom to utilizing 2 oars, both sides of sentience, the very code writ into our DNA... that dancing doubled helix of MUTUAL engagement. And when it's based on love, well, that makes all the difference, may even make war one day obsolete.

P.S. I am no Hillary supporter, not due to gender, obviously, but due to her policies.

No, COmarc, it isn't a predictably female tactic to break out the tears at a key point. It's what humans do naturally when they haven't squelched their emotions. And the media did attack her for it.

There seem to be two possibilities to describe the discrepancy between the polls and the result in NH. One is that the voting machines had some of the old Ohio magic.

The second is that Women Changed Their Minds at the last minute and voted for the woman-in-distress in a strictly sisterhood, sexist way. Maybe both.

Hillary's breakdown came at that exact last moment, and the news and views of it were very widely disseminated. This seemed to have created anger towards the male candidates, especially Edwards, that seemed to be beating her down, and women's natural empathy to another woman getting "beat up by males" changed their vote instantaneously. Edwards is now probably out of the race, and his gender vote numbers seem to indicate that he was abandonded by women, for his Hillary-bashing.

No one is pointing out however that just a short time ago, it was supposed to be a Hillary landslide. That she has just eked out a win from Obama says something about her as a candidate. But all the pundit-sters on the tee-vee say it was an "amazing comeback". So a 20-percentage-point drop is an amazing comeback?

I think women's empathy was in play, and look for the Clintons to grasp this politically/cynically. Look for Hillary to play the gender card more and more. I wish Hillary were worthy of being the first woman President, I really do.

And I wish politics was about issues, but it is not about those things anymore. Witness the rise of George Bush... liar, charlatan, sociopath, warmonger, hypocrite, criminal, dullard, traitor... but perceived as a "straight-shootin' rock-solid he-man 'Merican cowboy" with a brush ranch and a codpiece.

So substance doesn't matter anymore I guess. It's just about celebrity and personality. Hillary as a female iconic personality was backed by women in the end. That she is part of the corrupted DemParty Machine did not matter. That she would be yet another Clinton Administration did not matter. That she represents Bob Rubin of Citibank and the Corporate interests did not matter. That the Clinton years marginalized the liberal and progressive parts of the Dem Party "in order to win" and thus eroded all the Democratic Party stood for, did not matter. That the rise of the radical Far-Right Neo-cons and the takeover of the Republican Party by stone-age Regressives, religious Fundamentalists, Neo-Con-men and drooling 'liberal' Haters happened under their watch, did not matter. She was a woman in distress, and the women of NH responded with their support. This is the Kabuki Theater that American Politics has become.

SiouxRose,

Those governed strictly by the mind and by reason will always dominate those governed by emotion and spirituality. This is so because people that need emotionality for sustenance will always be ground down to zero by those who don't need it.

This might be one of the greatest tragedies of the human condition. Hyper-rational people are relentless grinders. They will grind down anything and everything in their path, which makes this the dominant state of being.

Those people given to such dominance will be best served by rationality. And those that are rational naturally will always have a leg up on those that don't in the struggle for power and influence in places where a lot of power is at stake.

Apologies, but I think your dream of a balance is not realistic.

Those that seek balance -- the best they can do is try to carve out an independent slice of the action where a more balanced set of rules has the chance to flourish. Mainstream politics is not going to be that game in the United States of America -- a place where 25% or more of the world's wealth and power is concentrated.

Hillary Clinton is not a viable candidate because she is a woman, but rather exactly because she epitomizes the characteristics commonly associated with the male gender role.

mirf59

Yes, it's always 'reason' against 'compassion' and humanity.

The first post in this thread, by mirf59, says it so well that I have little to add.

I don't care whether Hillary is a woman or not, and I am not interested in the inner recesses of her mind, her private states, her emotions, but I do care about her behavior, her positions, and her utterances in the public arena (all of which can be verified and documented), and all of the latter point to the fact that she is a crypto-Republican, and that, since she is vested in the Democratic cloak, she is an extremely manipulative individual. As such, I would not put it beyond her to use her lacrymal glands, or her gender, to political effects.

Chelsea is a vegetarian so Hillary can't be all bad.

Siouxrose, there is no Divine feminine or masculine. Nothing is holy.

Women Crybabies vote for Crying Hillary

Dear Patriots,

Hillary cries, and the crybaby democratic women of New Hampshire gave her over 54% of the vote. On a Monday broadcast with Brit Hume, she cried when talking about how tough her campaign was, saying that she really cared. On Tuesday, she wins the New Hampshire primary due to the Monday cry fest. Leave it to a woman to emotionally manipulate votes from other women instead of using a firm hand.

Hard and firm Republican women wouldn't have been fooled by such an emotional appeal.

Stop emotions in politics, it's un-American!!

Yours,
Tex Shelters

(Check out my blog for my real right news at MySpace/texshelters: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=266473317)

mirf59

"Boys learn in Junior High and High School that girls sometimes cry dishonestly to manipulate them."

I'd be interested to learn how these boys distinguish between girls crying "dishonestly" or girls crying because they are genuinely upset by something the boys have done. Maybe the boys are lacking in empathy and can't accept that the girls are not crying in order to manipulate them.

Interestingly, I recently watched a British TV program where couples who were experiencing problems with their relationships had their brains scanned. The experiment was to demonstrate how men and women differ in the ways they empathize with others. Each man and woman of each couple was shown a situation of other human beings suffering in some fashion and then their brains were scanned to see how the part of the brain that deals with empathy was reacting. What was really scary (to me) was the comparative lack of empathy in a large proportion of the men compared with the women, with some of the men experienced no empathy whatsoever towards the humans in the distressing situation.

I cry very easily. I cry when listening to a piece of music that moves me, when cuddling my 20-year old cat prior to having to euthanize her, eg. However, I really have a hard time faking it. I am trying right now to cry, and it isn't happening. It only happens when my emotions are involved.

I think men have to accept that it's part of life for women to cry and that women are just being themselves and not neccessarily trying to manipulate men (poor things! I mean men never try to manipulate women do they?). If men think it's somehow a bad thing for women to cry (which seems to be the case), then it's their problem and they should just get over it!

Tex Shelters

"Hard and firm Republican women wouldn't have been fooled by such an emotional appeal."

I don't know whether Tex Shelters is being serious or indulging in irony. If serious, now we have a man telling us that Republican women don't cry! Incidentally, why is it that men are always telling us how they think we should behave?

Hiker Woman,

You are an honest person and you have a good heart. That is to your credit.

Sadly, you are only one woman. Not all people are as honest as you are, certainly not all politicians.

Yes, men lack empathy. No argument there. I am a man, and I say "guilty as charged."

There are many Kissingers and Nixons, Reagans, Cheneys, Rumsfelds, Bush 43s.

But, there are also Margaret Thatchers, Madeleine Albrights, and other women whose advocacy of the knee-jerk projection of force no matter the human cost is every bit as nasty as the "hunting-accident" Cheney types.

I believe Hillary fits right in with this crowd. Her votes and her speeches are hawkish. Word from the Clinton White House was she was a very hawkish advisor to her husband, who found a way to keep the military quite busy.

Anyway, if lack of empathy equates to hawkish foreign policy, one might be forced to say that Hillary lacks empathy.

Remember, individual differences are always more pronounced than categorical differences.

One woman and the next woman will always differ more in the ability to empathize than the average woman compared with the average man. The fact of the supremacy of individial difference has been proven decisively in Psychology research.

Similarly, one man and the next man will always differ more in spatial skills than the average difference between men and women.

I can't believe how many women I have heard say they are voting for Hillary because they want to have a woman for President. This is beyond stupid. I can understand why an oppressed group would want representation but women in America are simply not oppressed anymore. There are more women college students than men. Hollywood does not hesitate to show a woman punching or slapping a man because he said something she doesn't like. There is a line of clothing for girls that says things like "Boys are stupid. You should throw dirt at them." Can you imagine how the converse would be accepted?" I am a woman, yet I find this very offensive.

The world is full of people who try to manipulate others with deception. Of course women cry at times for effect. Men would also except that it usually doesn't help any male cause. Hillary's tears were on cue and contrived, most likely.

HER HUSBAND...BILLY...IS HER BIGGEST LIABILITY

As a matter of fact, a candidate apparently crying did play a role in another New Hampshire primary. In 1972, Edmund Muskie appeared to cry when defending his wife from charges that she drank and swore (he claimed the tears were 'melting snowflakes'). The alleged tears were a disaster for the Muskie campaign. Many people are now saying that Hillary's tears won her votes. This seems to suggest the impact of 'free to be you and me/it's okay to cry' culture in the US over the last 35 years. Bill 'I feel your pain' Clinton probably had a role in this.

Murf59,

Please do not confuse emotional with spiritual.Gandhi ground the British out of India.
For obvious reasons spiritual leaders will not participate in U.S politics. They will wait until Mother Earth grinds down the wealth and power of the misguided hyper rationals.This will happen sooner than people think.

Dear COMarc,

I totally agree with you about Obama (see below). Wonderful oratorical style, but not much substance ...

"I just keep waiting for Obama to actually say something. His mouth moves a lot, and the sounds that emerge sound pleasant. But I keep listening to him trying to hear him actually say something, and I just don't hear anything. Lots of drivel about hope and change and how we need to be united. But his lack of content or any real plans that would tell me that I should 'hope' to have a fair single-payer health care system, or that I should 'hope' he'd have our troops out of Iraq in six months, or many others are just missing."

I am male, and I believe the greatest hazard of maleness is the traditional rule that says boys don't cry. Someday maybe we'll evolve to the point where a candidate who cries, male or female, is the norm and not a freak show for the media.

That said, I eagerly await the day that I can cast my vote for a woman or a person of color who is truly progressive. Maybe that will be this year with Cynthia McKinney as the Green Party candidate.

Let's see. The voters are tired of the partisan, militaristic status quo, so a plurality of New Hampshire Democrats vote for a candidate who is at least as hawkish and divisive as George W. Bush--a fortiori, at the same point in her career, far more. I'm sure her new personality du jour, cooked up from the menu proposed by consultants, has helped. No one cares that she hasn't shed a tear for the 4000 Americans and million Iraqis who have died in a war, founded on a patently fraudulent casus belli, that she has always gleefully supported; it's enough that she choked up about the difficulties of campaigning, riding on her husband's frayed and semen-stained coattails while portaying herself as a feminist, a strong and self-sufficient women while Bill talks as if he were running for reelection. At least she seems to have discovered the first person plural.

If she is stoic, she is calculating; if she cries, she is calculating. The frame fits everything she does.

That "leftists" perpetuate the frame is disgusting. Clinton is far, far better than any Republican, and unlike Obama, is not full of shit. She may not be progressive enough for your tastes (or mine) but she'll get things done. Obama would be a cork on the water. He's not beloved by the media for nothing.

Obviously none of the posters here saw Jon Stewart's take on the 'tears", or his images of various male politicians in tears. Don't waste any more of your own tears (or whatever) on this subject. The reality is that it is really hard to get a clear sense of what a candidate stands for because so much of the information we get comes through the media, how long a clip they give a candidate, where in a speech they edit, and so on. It is my fervent hope that people will go back to looking at the evidence of where each candidate stands on the issues. At the very least, I hope that will drive home to folks that Ron Paul (even if he opposes and opposed the war in Iraq) is one very dangerous dude. There is no legitimacy for anything that isn't mentioned in the Constitution? Pul-leeze. Say good-bye to any sort of reasonable healthcare with that guy!

GREAT POST from ms.conniff.it seems like a 100 years since we elected that normal guy from texas who now appears to be,er, delusional.which may be the point-appropriate emotion is fine-dissociative ideation is clearly not good.consider that a meloncholic lincoln,charged with smashing a rebellion,and grieving for his dead children,often paced the whitehouse floor far into the night-but his policies were reality based -the beneficiary of his own genius,and the counsel of acrack cabinet of men chosen for their abilities,not their blind personal loyalty,and ideological rigidity.by the way,if you want to see rage,and anger,unleashed,raw and to the brink,i'm told one ought to stand in front of mccain when things are out of kilter on the "staight talk express. just sayin....

The antidote for rigged elections is direct democracy.

Obama is the real deal. Clinton will sell you out.

"Judge Him By His Laws"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

"Obama Forged Political Mettle In Illinois Capitol"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262_pf.html

"In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd" (Graphic of Illinois Legislation)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.htm

And don't fall for Hillary's 'mandate' nonsense. I'm currently paying for mandated health insurance I can't afford to attend college. $1,500 a year on top of $9,000 a year. The issue is NOT MANDATES. ITS AFFORDABILITY.

Oh, and guess who I have to buy loans from. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18040824/

You think this doesn't happen with mandated health insurance?

As Obama says, "Cost is the number one reason that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance and thousands more are edging toward bankruptcy every day…What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it." He has never ruled out a mandate, he has said we have to take on the health insurance corporations and address the underlying costs of healthcare first, before we can legislate an affordable mandate for ALL AMERICANS.

What good is an unaffordable health care mandate? What are we going to do, throw everyone in prison who doesn't have health insurance when they're caught speeding?

The Massachusetts Plan

"But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.

Additional concerns have been generated by projections that the state's insurers plan to raise rates 10 percent to 12 percent next year, twice this year's national average. That would undercut the plan's secondary goal of slowing the increase in health costs."We're going to be very aggressive in trying to get those numbers down to single digits," said Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies. "If we continue with double-digit inflation, I don't think health reform is sustainable."…

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois sees it a different way. He argues there is danger in mandating coverage before it is clear it can be affordable for those at the margins. While Mr. Obama does not rule out a mandate down the road, his emphasis is on reducing costs and providing generous government subsidies to those who need them. He would mandate coverage for children. " [Because children don't have a choice, they're not adults.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25mass.html

Obama is the master triangulator. He is no real deal. Folks, don't turn off your brain. Read Paul Street's fine essays devastating Obama's false claim to be a progressive. He is worse than Hillary.

The corporate mainstream media drives the agenda and sets the bounds of thinkable thought. Most voters do not vote on the issues, preferring to make their choice on "personal qualities." Policy wise this is foolish. Look at the moron in the White House. It was very clearly what kind of president he would be if you only looked at his record and policy proposals.

Same with Clinton and Obama. They are free traders, the public opposes it.
They are for nuke power, the public opposed. They are against single payer, while the public supports.

Obviously, voters are not only not voting on the issues, its clear they don't know the candidates' positions on them.

I just watched the video of Hilary's supposed "crack up." Sorry, kids, but that did not qualify as an emotional display. You want to see emotional, how about tears rolling down your face in front of your entire high school class because many of them had been teasing you relentlessly during the entire period? THAT is sadness overflowing, and it has nothing to do with female manipulation. Hikerwoman made a very good case against the "female manipulation" theory of tears.

Three additional points:

1. If Hillary gets elected, she will continue the disastrous agenda of her corporate masters. Then it will be our turn to cry, from the littlest child to the biggest, toughest man out there.

2. The powers that rule this country care nothing about our sadness and anger - whether or not expressed in tears.

3. This disgusting "horserace" of a presidential election (swamped with videos about who cried, who hiccuped, etc.)serves the same purpose that reality television does: It conveniently distracts us from much worse crises: Global warming, U.S. warboat provocation off the coast of Iran, the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, the continuing attempts to reinstate the draft . . . do I need to go on?

Let's get our priorities straight, folks! CALL FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT!

And that's just for starters. Otherwise it won't matter who is in the White House.