Na, it is all about her. She just wants to be president so bad but the stupid americans just won't let her Its not fair. She was supposed to win! Not stupid Barack!



Boo-fucking-hoo

Sorry about the double post!

Oh no problem. It happens.

Your post was much better. Brilliant use of emoticons!!! You must be up near Chicago. Compared to others on this board, we are practically neighbors.

Yeah, my wife is a Clinton woman (watch it Bill, I have scissors and I'm not afraid to use em). She said she was voting for Clinton (like last week). She asked me who I was voting for.

Probably Obama. I was considering Ron Paul, because no one is talking about the economy really. But I do like Barack. He seems like a good man. But so did Hillary.

But seriously, I remember debating with my father back in 2005 about Hillary Clinton. My father is a staunch conservative and he said, "she is not qualified to run the country." I said to him, "why not, she did an alright job during the 1990's."

At least I made him laugh.

Did you see the video yet? She is talking about hard it is to campaign and......and her voice..her voice sounds all choked up. Excuse me, i have to go.

Huge Mistake

Y'all know I don't like Clintons politics.
I saw the video and I liked it. She seemed sincere and it seemed unscripted,
and it seemed real.

I have no doubt that it could have been planned, but it didn't seem that way.
The question that somehow sticks in my mind, is why do we give someone crap for being emotional?
Why do we assume the emotional event has to be fake?

Hell, she's probly very tired, likely not pleased at coming in 3rd in Iowa, and the polls have her in second in NH.
I mean, her being emotional is as plausable as not.

Everybody knows what crybabies girls are.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/livi...9_crying26.html


Friday, October 26, 2007
Bill Clinton could get away with tears. Can Hillary?
By Jocelyn Noveck
The Associated Press


NEW YORK — "Please, please, please, just give the dog back," Ellen DeGeneres wept on national TV last week. It was a moment that quickly established itself in the pop-culture firmament, less for the plight of Iggy the adopted terrier than for the copious crying itself.

Setting aside the question of whether those sobs were 100 percent genuine, tears are a natural human response, and public figures are obviously not immune. But some who study this most basic expression of feeling will tell you that in this day and age, it can be easier for a crying man to be taken seriously than a crying woman.

In politics, it's a far cry from 1972, when Sen. Ed Muskie's presidential campaign was derailed by what were perceived to be tears in response to a newspaper attack on his wife. But decades later, an occasional Clintonesque tear is seen as a positive thing.

Bill Clinton, that is.

"Bill could cry, and did, but Hillary can't," says Tom Lutz, a professor at the University of California, Riverside, who authored an exhaustive history of crying. The same tearful response that would be seen as sensitivity in Bill could be seen as a lack of control in his wife.

But there are additional rules for acceptable public crying. "We're talking about dropping a tear," Lutz notes, "no more than a tear or two." And it all depends on the perceived seriousness of the subject matter. Thus Jon Stewart or David Letterman could choke up with impunity just after Sept. 11. But a dog-adoption problem is another matter.

Who's crying now?

In a recently published study at Penn State, researchers sought to explore differing perceptions of crying in men and women, presenting their 284 subjects with a series of hypothetical vignettes.

Reactions depended on the type of crying, and who was doing it. A moist eye was viewed much more positively than open crying, and males got the most positive responses.

"Women are not making it up when they say they're damned if they do, damned if they don't," said Stephanie Shields, the psychology professor who conducted the study. "If you don't express any emotion, you're seen as not human, like Mr. Spock on 'Star Trek,' " she said. "But too much crying, or the wrong kind, and you're labeled as overemotional, out of control and possibly irrational."

That comes as no surprise to Suzyn Waldman, a broadcaster of Yankee games on New York's WCBS Radio.

Earlier this month, she choked up on live radio after the Yankees had just been eliminated from the playoffs. She was describing the scene as manager Joe Torre's coaches choked up themselves, watching him at the podium and foreseeing the end of an era.

Her tearful report quickly became an Internet hit, and she was mocked far and wide, especially on radio, with her voice, for example, played over the song "Big Girls Don't Cry."

"This turned into something pretty ugly," Waldman said in an interview. "I don't throw around the word 'sexist,' but this was as sexist as it gets."

While Waldman notes that female anger in the clubhouse is OK — it makes her seem tough, she says — one recent study indicates that perceptions of anger, too, differ according to gender.

"When men express anger they gain status, but when women express anger they lose status," Yale social psychologist Victoria Brescoll, who conducted three experiments on how people perceive female anger, said in an interview. Her study is to be published in the journal Psychological Science.

For a little historical perspective, says Lutz, author of "Crying: The Natural and Cultural History of Tears," it's helpful to look back to the 19th century, when skillful politicians like Abraham Lincoln used tears as a natural part of their oratory.

The tide later shifted against male crying, but in the past 30 to 40 years male crying has gained in acceptability. "Every president since Ronald Reagan has used tears at some point," says Shields, the Penn State psychologist.

As for female politicians, many remember the 1987 incident in which Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., had to defend herself against charges of weakness after she wept while announcing her decision not to run for president.

Military figures have cried at critical moments. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf cried at a Christmas Eve ceremony in front of his troops, and when interviewed by Barbara Walters, Lutz notes.

Gee, thanks, mister

There seem to be few limits on crying if you're in entertainment. Johnny Carson's tears were touching on the second-to-last night of his career, serenaded by Bette Midler. As for awards shows, aren't we even a little disappointed when a winner doesn't cry?

But in DeGeneres' case, along with the strong support from fans and many dog lovers, she also endured some criticism and mockery, especially from fellow comic Bill Maher. (To recap: DeGeneres had adopted Iggy from a rescue organization, then given it to her hairdresser's family when the dog didn't get along with her cats. That was against the rules, and the rescue group took the dog back.)

Maher decided to respond on behalf of an entire gender: The opposite one.

"At this moment, when the entire nation is saying, 'Hmm, can we have a woman president? Maybe they're too emotional,' I don't think this is helping," Maher said on his talk show.

"If I was a woman," he added, "I would be embarrassed right now. I would be embarrassed for all womankind."

I could care less that she is emotional. She has every right to be emotional. I am sure she is exhausted as are all the candidates. I just find it amusing that the once invincible, and sometimes smug, candidate is now shaken to the point of tears.

That is one side of it but lets not forget that it also

-More than likely lands another blow to her campaign

-Seems strangely out of place, which makes it seem all the more fake.

-Makes her seem move self absorbed, since she will cry about not winning the nomination but not about all of the terrible things she has done.


In my eyes this is lose-lose situation. If she was seriously crying then it raises questions about her supposed toughness and he ability to remain calm under pressure. If she wasn't seriously crying than it was a clear manipulation strategy and how many of us haven't had to deal with that tactic from the women in our lives?