crocodile tears
by Brian Thomas
Published: January 10, 2008
Maybe the next musical act to perform at Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire headquarters will be the group Tears for Fears. And perhaps they will do a cover of Van Halen’s “Jaime’s Crying,” after Clinton’s tear jerking answer to a seemingly innocent question by a supporter. This show of emotion has unleashed claims of weakness and has caused doubt in the minds of some of those who once saw Clinton as a possible choice as the future commander in chief.
Before criticizing Clinton because of her Oscar worthy performance or celebrating her outburst as a natural reaction to pressure, remember that nothing in politics is what it seems.
For instance, look at the circumstances which surround this recent “outcry.” Senator Clinton was frantically campaigning to the New Hampshire primary voters after being handed a devastating loss in the Iowa caucus. Her hopes of obtaining the presidency were diminished and another defeat so early in the primary season would greatly lessen her chances even more so.
In Iowa, Senator Clinton had failed to secure the majority of female and independent votes. When polled about their decisions not to support Hillary, most Iowans stated that she is overly headstrong and insistent.
The key point is that she was appearing too aggressive and a softer image was becoming a necessity.
Now fast forward, as Senator Clinton campaigns in New Hampshire. A simple “unrehearsed” question about her abilities to keep up the pace caused the candidate to shed tears and succumb to emotions. This incredible change in her demeanor is amazing, given that just one week before, she had lost support due to her hard-line appearance. If candidates did not already have enough political ploys and mudslinging to contend with, they must now be subjected to crocodile tears.
I do not believe for one moment that Hillary Clinton could not control her “heartbreaking” emotional release nor do I have any empathy for any candidate who would allow themselves to be viewed by the rest of the world as feeble and unable to stand firm under pressure. I would have more respect for Hillary Clinton if she had maintained her original stature and not wavered to political parlor tricks.
Clinton has tried to eliminate some of the media backlash by highlighting the fact that past political leaders have been consumed by emotions and have also publicly expressed them. While the Senator is right in some ways, she has failed to note that those past political leaders were sharing their emotions after horrific disasters and/or when the entire nation was grieving for a tremendous loss. Furthermore, no political leader has, to my knowledge, ever cried after a simple question was asked regarding their campaign. President Reagan did not weep as he stood toe-to-toe with Iran or the U.S.S.R. and neither did Hillary’s husband, President Bill Clinton, after Monica Lewinsky broke his heart.
Everyone in the world deals with pressure in different ways and some do find that crying does alleviate some of the tension; however, Senator Clinton was not attempting to do so. She was instead trying to soften her image in the eyes of primary voters who seem to favor the more charismatic Barack Obama (Dem.) and the more laidback Mike Huckabee (Rep.).
In the end her emotions did not get the best or her, instead it was her unrelenting political goals and determination to win at the polls.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
