|
6
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by A question to Hillary Clinton, posed after the Iowa Caucus loss to Barack Obama, opened the candidate's armor for a moment. The question seemed innocuous: "How did you get out the door every day? I mean, as a woman, I know how hard it is to get out of the house and get ready. Who does your hair?" With eyes welling up and a cracking voice, the Presidential hopeful responded, "It's not easy, it's not easy ... This is very personal to me, it's not just political." [video] Some voters indicated the emotional response was a deciding factor for them, and the next day Hillary cinched a victory at the New Hampshire polls. Nonetheless, pundits question if her response was merely a one-off from the stress of campaigning. Some have even considered it a campaign tactic. Is America looking for its next commander-in-chief to be less cold -- or even emotional?
Add a Comment (15)
Email This
Message Author
One woman who wasn't moved by Hillary's emotion is the woman that asked the question - she voted for Obama.
...this time from the current commander-in-chief...
The part of that article that stood out to me was:
Bush at one point stopped before aerial photos of the Auschwitz death camp taken by American planes during World War II, and asked Rice to tell him why the American military did not bomb the camp.
"We should have bombed it," he told her, Shalev said.
Rice, asked by reporters on the plane to Kuwait about the comment, said they had been discussing the reasons why the wartime allies had not bombed the railway lines to Auschwitz.
I can practically hear that conversation now.
Some reporter asking, "Did he just say he wanted to bomb the prisoners?"
Condoleezza Rice thinking to herself, "that $%*@& idiot spoke again," before responding with a smile and a Jedi mind trick, "No No ... he meant the train lines."
Another report retorted, "I'm pretty sure he said 'bomb the camp'."
Rice's brow furrows as she uses both hands in a double Jedi mind trick, "No No ... he meant the train lines."
"Oh, he meant bomb the train lines," repeated the reporters, mindlessly as a bit of drool dripped from their entranced mouths..
Yeah, but he ain't running for office, using his gender as a pom-pom. Also, I would seriously doubt the humanity of any President (or Presidential hopeful) who didn't get emotional visiting the Israeli Holocaust museum.
Oh, so it's ok to cry once you get to be President, but Allah [or any other deity] forbid if you get choked up if you're running.
But there is a Holocaust museum as well in Washington, why did he have to cry in front of the Israeli? He showed weakness. Double standards, anyone?
One display of emotion was in response to a question about how hard it is to get up and campaign everyday. The other was in response to millions of people slaughtered because of their race.
Here we are, arguing appearances instead of substance and issues.
Relax everyone, it's OK. This country survived worse Presidents (this administration not included).
But, since no one will let this go:
Arguably Hillay was tired blah blah blah and she supposedly got emotional to show how deeply she cares about people, issues.
On the other hand, in Israel, Condoleeza did not cry, and she was exposed to the same exhibit. It clearly shows that the President has a more gentle soul and is not cut from the same stone as Ms. Rice.
I am looking forward to a code of conduct for presidents and presidents wanna-be on when it is OK to display some public emotion. (did the President cry around 9/11? if not, why not? does this mean he cares more about WWII victims than current ones? does the President cry when watching Saving Private Ryan?)
What this whole pointless debate about emotionless commanders-in-chief shows is how deeply the gender divide still runs... and the stereotypes that go with territory, of course.
Speaking of which, if Hillary wins, we may see gay folks serving openly in the military. Oh no..
Speaking of which, if Hillary wins, we may see gay folks serving openly in the military. Oh no..
Yeah, lust like her husband promised... except that would take political courage. Already Hillary has argued that we needed more troops in Iraq, and then immediately opposed the surge and all but called GEN Petraeus a liar to his face, and now on Meet The Press acts as if she thought the surge was a good idea the entire time. Hell, the press might start actually calling her on it, since it appears that the Mainstream Media are abandoning the HMS Hillary for the Good Ship Obama and the days of Senator Clinton getting a free pass are coming to a close.
Ok, now that we left this issue to rest, I am interested in your opinion about gays in the military? Pro? Con?
I've had my encounter with military life, I know there is a strong sub-cultural bias against everything not straight, but is this really that big of an issue anymore?
Remember, people used to hate that blacks drink from the same water fountains as whites....
I am interested in your opinion about gays in the military? Pro? Con?
I'll add this - homosexuals should not be allowed into the military unless all barracks, showers and bathrooms are converted to unisex. Why? I ask you to question why the separation currently exists. To answer, I pose that the uncomfortable unease of shower gawking, molestation, rape, etc. affect a unit's ability to work together as a team. Thus, the basic separation is in place as a barrier to immediate access. This is not to say none of these things happen anyway, but the happen in situations external to directly putting men and women in the shower together for instance. That sort of separation does not exist when you're dealing with lesbians or gays in the shower or barracks room. That basic premise comes up again, the soldiers within the unit simply become uncomfortable with one another to the point that it affects operational cohesion - which gets people killed. It sounds stupid, mundane and oversimplified but it's just human nature.
So when the system goes unisex and proves itself to function, then humans have proven the emotional maturity and self control with which there is no argument against homosexuals. But I doubt humans can control that nature and that is the very reason I don't see the tolerance to allow homosexuals that kind of access.
Obviously, some people today have that kind of control. And any unknown homosexuals serving today under the "don't ask / don't tell" policy show that this scenario is not causing problems and can be done. But if the policy went away and people assumed, well, I have complete access to the men's shower to gape and gawk at people that are in far better physical condition than everywhere else ... you are going to have a problem.
For the record, I don't have anything against homosexuals as people. I'm merely stating a reason that this situation has problems.
I have to side with Vnutz on this -- homosexuals have served with honor in every war this nation has fought, but they served in silence. I have nothing against homosexuals (and I'm pretty sure there isn't any Biblical proscriptions against homosexuals, a subject I have addressed at length on this site but don't have the time to track it down right now) but human nature being what it is, Vnutz is absolutely correct that the operational readiness problems inherent in removing the ban at this point in history are too big to ignore.
RSS
Smart by scubasteve :: NR4 :: on 09 January 2008
Everything the woman does is scripted and planned to the last detail. If that is what clinched NH for her, then what a performance.
RE: Smart by gnifyus :: NR7 :: on 09 January 2008
I don't know, I usually tend to think in the same cynical way, and so I'll admit the possibility it was all contrived did cross my mind when I saw the news broadcast. I have to say though; there was something about this one that seemed real at second glance. In this particular case, if that display of emotion was an act, then I think we are all in trouble because her power to manipulate much of public would be almost unbounded. When watching the video I'm struck by the possibility that maybe Hillary started out genuinely choked up, and then played into it a little more when she sensed it was working. Who knows? We'll have to wait and see if the "emotional card" gets played at future opportune moments.
RE: Smart by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 10 January 2008
Some voters indicated the emotional response was a deciding factor for them
Stuff like this makes me worry for the Republic-- if it's not a candidate's stand on issues that sways voters but that they cry when asked a softball question -- I'm starting to agree with this quote from author Dan Simmons:
RE: Smart by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 10 January 2008
RoLbErt here.
First, I never thought it was THAT emotional....
Second, it struck me as fake or unconvincing or both.
Third, with all due respect to believers in democracy, honest, intelligent discourse died a long time ago. Just around the time when people stopped being interested in 4-hour-long town-hall-style debates. So yes, all candidates do it because this is what it takes to run for president. Some people are better than others at pulling off public performances (it certainly helps if you are an actor or just incredibly good at public speaking).
On this third note, all candidates are scripted and it's all about image anyway... (I still can't believe the current President got elected given how poorly he speaks without a script - so there you have the power of scripting in current politics)
It's NOT the end of the world, that's for sure. It's just a game (despite what Hillary says) and they all know it. I am a true believer in the self-adjusting power of American democracy... plus there are plenty of checks and balances in this Republic to allow for the occasional [insert negative epithet of your liking here] President.