Spears today on Air America.

playing music spliced in to Hillary's tearing in the background.

She than played Obama's iowa speech afterwards and had very little sympathy for Hillary.

Just wait till Team Hillary starts Willie Hortonizing Obama..

I can't wait to watch it coming..

As an Obama supporter this was the only event of today that concerned me.

His point is valid, but better left unsaid.

Echidne was goddamned right about this:

Can Clinton's Emotions Get the Best of Her?

The headline on one of those pieces about Hillary Clinton showing emotion. For months the media has fretted over her not showing emotion: Is she perhaps too cold, too callous, too ambitious? She was supposed to suffer from a "likeability" crisis.

So what happens when she shows some emotion, by tearing up? Oops:

How voters weigh Clinton's composure may not differ between genders, according to Georgetown's Owens.

"Male voters are basically going to see a hysterical woman," said Owens. "Women are going to think that if Clinton is going to take on this responsible role and represent women in such a visible way she should do a better job of it and not expose the gender to this criticism."

There ya go. Now could someone in the media write a piece about exactly how a female candidate may show emotion, when and where.

I've always felt liberals understood racism far better than they understand sexism.  Maybe a little focus on this particular double standard will help matters.

I thought her tears were genuine, but they were tears of anger, not hurt or grief. They matched her words, which displayed anger that the upstart Obama is displacing her.

Both of them.  Today the two of them managed to insult the legacies of the two most important Black people in history.  First Hillary somehow placed Lyndon Johnson ahead of Martin Luther King in the Civil Rights struggle and then Bill inexplicably said if he had to choose one person to help him with the last job on earth, he would pick Hillary over Nelson Mandela.  It's not so much his choice, but what the hell is he even talking about it for?  

And Hillary chokes up over how hard it is campaigning, showing how she reacts under stress.  Bill says he can't make her "young, tall, or male".  Hillary gets into a spat with Chris Matthews and then says she can't understand men obsessing over her.  And Bill comes out and says he always knew she'd have a tough time winning the primaries.

Quite a day.

The "emotional" Clinton was followed within ten seconds by more attacks on Obama. Nothing has changed by her hopelessness.

I think the tearful moment probably helped Clinton. If the stereotype is of her being a cold, calculated and shrill woman, I do not see how this can't help her.  I still think Obama will win, but some of the media types are setting pretty high expectations (i.e., obama wins by 15%-20%)

It started in '72.  Muskie was passionately defending his wife, and the media said he cried (it was snow).  This was the beginning of the end for American politics, as emotion was now not allowed in the game.

I agree with your comment about men not being permitted to be men, these days, though it is a tricky wicket and male violence is one of our social sicknesses.  It is essentially up to men to find activities in which their energy is passionate and determined rather than angry and stubbornly resentful.  And I'm not talking about watching sports either.

Some of Clinton's potential undoing over this matter has to be attributed to what she showed emotion about. From the ABC transcript "she choked up responding to one woman's question about how she stays "upbeat and so wonderful. 'It's not easy,'" she said. If she had gotten upset about something that didn't have to do just with her--like dead soldiers in Iraq or families losing their healthcare and homes--wouldn't this show of emotion been viewed in a different, and potentially more positive, context? No doubt, it's very difficult for women politicians to ever show emotion. Kathleen Blanco, for instance, was largely criticized about coming to tears over the plight of hurricane Katrina victims. But at least people agreed that what she was getting emotional about was indeed tragic. How many people really feel sorry for how tough it is for politicians to campaign for the Presidential nomination?

Well I have to say that as a definite non-fan of the senator, I thought the moment was quite endearing of her. She seemed sincere and honest to me, and it was the kind of display of emotion that I think people needed to see from her because at times she looks like an automaton.

IT's probably too late to make a difference, but for the first time in a long time, I truly felt sorry for her.

Well, it helps her with some women. Tom Browkaw said he talk to several young women who were put off by it.

But she's not wining those women anyway.

I think it was genuine--its a sad day for the clintons.

She should have stopped after her initial thoughts. I believe that was genuine. But then she fell back into political mode and blew the moment.

I prefer to see her with emotions that act like a fucking robot like shes been acting.

I support Edwards, but this wasn't his finer moment. Sometimes saying nothing is the best answer.

If Dick Vermiel can cry over every freaking minor accomplishment, I don't see why it is seen as bad for a woman to show tears. Tough athletes crying has become so commonplace.

I am one of the more cynical people here. But what I saw in the Hillary tearing up clips on TV was Hillary letting her guard down. I think Hillary could have easily controlled her emotions if she wanted to and she has done so in the past. But I think she felt that it would only help her gain some sympathy points by making herself look more human. Men and women being equal does not have to mean they have to express themselves the same way.

So I feeel it was a political decision by her to let the public see her tear up. but I don't think she had to fake it. It came from stress built up bringing her defenses down and her political instinct told her to go with the flow.

I think this will help her more than hurt her. Those who get turned off by it won't vote for her anyway.

CNN is speculating it will be James Carvelle to the rescue tomorrow.

Watching the tape closely, and considering the context, including all the other things that the Clinton campaign has "attempted" to do today, I firmly believe that this "emotionally released" sound bite was premeditated and prepackaged.  

It looks like it was designed by her campaign to be uttered with a dash of emotion. It seems, however, that Hillary took her lines in the script right to the edge of maudlin...then probably crossed that line. Uhhhhh...no.

Additionally, her comment that "this is personal" was a direct ripoff of what Edwards said during the NH debate a few hours ago.  And, the MSM essentially wanting John Edwards to be credited with nothing in this campaign, did not report this direct ripoff.  Because....?

That part of the script that had her deliver this line:  "some of us are right, and some of us are wrong", SHOULD have been the story of this particular episode.  In particular, the media should not have spent more than a minute reporting about her tearing up (which actually was trivial), and instead, immediately thereafter, asked Hillary to detail where SHE is right, and Barack Obama is wrong.  

She, and her lines, dropped a very blunt attack on her opponents, and she should have been asked to explain EXACTLY what she meant.  Instead, we got the soap opera reporting about tearing up.  

The notion that a candidate on the campaign trail (whether it be a man or a woman) can say...in so many words...that I deserve sympathy, because this is SUCH hard work, and NOT receive a fair amount of scorn from the voters, is simply fantasy. When George Bush kept saying in debates back in 2004, that "this is hard work" voters, to excuse his failures...THAT deserved scorn.

As I see it, if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.  If you can't do the job, then get out. Kerry should have said that to Bush's face when he whined during those debates.  And that would NOT have been tone deaf, even if Bush were wearing a dress.

The ABC blog report you reference on Edwards is hopelessly biased against Edwards, suggesting that he "pounced."  How about Edwards commented?  And every word Edwards said was true. The Presidency is hard work, and grueling...which is...uhm...the truth.  

If the MSM were actually reporting on Edwards as their favored candidate (as they are with Obama), then Edwards would have been contrasted to Hillary, at a moment like this following the whining, as a candidate who apparently has incredible endurance, pulling all nighters, while the reporters drop like flies and doze off, and still remaining substantially lucid.

As for Obama, really folks, he failed to comment because he is presently...uhm...in the lead, and he does not want ANYTHING to upset the ducks he has in a row. When Obama was NOT the front-runner a few days ago, in the middle of an international crisis, he decided it was a great time to attack Hillary. That should have been the time for a no comment as well, but then...well...what a difference an Iowa win, and yet another Newsweek cover (3 and counting?), can make.