It’s possible that I stand alone on the Hillary crying debacle. It’s possible that I stand alone in my disgust at the phrase “Hillary crying debacle.” It’s highly possible that I’m alone in thinking that way too much column space has been given to why we think Hillary ‘cried,’ and not enough to why we think it matters so much.
Whether or not Clinton’s tear ducts are functioning, weak, dishonest, strategizing or any other number of ridiculous adjectives, has become newsworthy. People enjoy reading about this topic, and some will cast votes deciding the fate of their country based on what they have read about it. Clinton might as well start stumping about that minute and a half in New Hampshire, because we’re all thinking about it anyway.
I could not care less if she cried. Whatever the reasons, whatever the motivation, it’s water falling out of her eyes. In this case, not even falling. Just sitting there shining. And sitting eyeball-water is now determining her electability as President of the United States.
What I do care about is the nature of the political game. The way in which America’s (theoretically) sharpest minds are not above arguing over who is “likeable enough” and who “has help on special days” with hair and makeup. If this kind of information was important, then of course it would be crucial when, where and under what circumstances Hillary Clinton pulled the gushy card.
It simply is not. It is, in fact, detrimental to the political process.
Mudslinging is embarrassing to watch, almost no matter what mud is being slung. It’s either bad for the recipient, who may in fact have something to hide, or it’s bad for the attacker, who looks desperate and foolish.
This case is clearly the latter.
Hillary Clinton is deserving of critique, as are all of her opponents. This critique should never, under any circumstances, NEVER, focus on her gender. Neither should it focus on Obama’s race. This historical moment is only a stride for equality in America if we can shut up long enough to let the candidates be equal.
Imagine what this race would be like if Clinton could spend her time talking about issues instead of defending her emotional capacity. Imagine what this country would be like if no one had cared four years ago when Howard Dean got riled up during a campaign stop and shouted. He literally, quite literally, lost the election because his voice cracked and some talking head decided that made him insane and possibly cannibalistic.
Well, voices crack when they’re tired. The nature of the American caucusing system is to run candidates ragged seemingly for the sport of it. There’s not actually a reason for most of what goes on leading up to November. Voting dates could be spread out, and geographical clusters could vote together instead. The future leaders of the free world could get some sleep.
But they don’t, and so here we are writing editorials and arguing about what caused Hillary to tear up in New Hampshire. In fact, the question that caused all the ruckus was about how Clinton manages to keep herself so together on the campaign trail: a question that would absolutely only be asked of a woman by another woman, and one which wasted the time of everyone present.
No one asks Obama how he keeps in touch with his African heritage every day. Gender is truly the trump card in this election. Clinton cannot be viewed by the American public as anything before she is viewed as a woman. This two minute incident in a New Hampshire café is a “crying debacle” because crying is inextricably connected to the female. It’s like she served it to us on a platter. “Look at me, I am a woman. You can tell this because I answer questions about makeup, and worse than that, I CRY in the middle of my answer.”
Who on earth actually knows what went through her mind then, or any other time? What matters, what NEEDS to matter, is that Clinton is a front-runner for the candidacy of President of the United States. She needs to be judged based on her answers to the questions that aren’t about looking good on the campaign trail. It needs to be noted that, whatever was happening for her emotionally, she answered her question thoughtfully and intelligently.
Essentially, I think a lot of the world’s problems might be solved if more political tears were shed. But that’s not Clinton’s problem. She is not a poster child for emotional breakdowns. She did not, in fact, have an emotional breakdown.
She’s running for President. We get to vote or not vote for her. Let’s start asking smart questions of Clinton and her runningmates, and let’s pay attention to the answers instead of the tear ducts.