Howdy! Off to work now!

Blue Texan!

Yes! Well done.

As he continued, Boehner began to weep openly, crying out: “After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them?”

Don’t you wish it was Obama or Edwards saying this?

John Boehner (R-OH), standing by off Johnson’s right shoulder, began to shed tears. A moment later he took the microphone and — referring to Johnson’s remarks while speaking about the “solemn” nature of the debate this week — got misty all over again.

…

“Members on both sides of the aisle feel differently about our mission in Iraq and our chances of success there,” Boehner said, pausing to compose himself. As he continued, Boehner began to weep openly, crying out: “After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them?”

Boner.

Hillary is entitles to her emotions but I cant help but thinking it would not have happened if she was frontrunner.
Usually it seems as if “handlers” ruin campaign for pols.

Jeez,

Does this mean Ed Muskie has a shot at the Presidency?

Gonzales himself at one point wiped tears from his eyes and praised the Justice Department as “a place of inspiration” in his farewell speech.

Ok, don’t make me bilious before I have to drive in to work.

And this Fredo quote begs the question- inspiration to what? Gee, Rove’d really like to gut this place & I was lucky enough to be in just the position to help him do it? It was inspiring!

Good — very good — very, very good post. Like it. True as it is, msm will continue to talk about HRC – only- tearing up. For a few days at least.

Arianna: Portrait in Cynicism: Hillary Attacks Obama from Every Angle

I don’t get it, what is the point of this blog? Every politician gets teary eyed at some point, and it is a shame people actually fall for it. BTW, you better include most of the Dem candidates in there. Hillary just put on a show after her beat down in Iowa, and Obama played the card about a month ago in a speech.

Quick time out from working at the polls in NH. Voting turnout very heavy here in gthe most Democratic ward in the state. No Romney supporters in sight. No rudy either.

Beautiful day, sunshine and 45 expected to be in the 60’s later.

OK good cup of hot choc and back to work

Of course the media reaction has been sexist. That said, my problem was that the whole thing looked a little rehearsed.

Ah, theys just like them mensfolks who done got they seves knocked up…

I know that this is contrast. I also agree that tears are fine.

But ironically none of the people on that list are fit to lead (and de facto lead)

Good post BT, but Boehner may be a bridge too far. If you’re gonna include him in making the point, you have to bring in the “leave Brittany alone,” guy.

Finally going in to work, but 1st wanted to post a link to Pat Lang’s latest blog post on the primaries:

“We Dance in Our Chains”- Nietszche

Read you all later. Good luck on the NH front lines today, nomolos!

Getting teary eyed is like everything else; IOKIYAR.

In fact, when Republicans well up it shows their authenticity.

“Und now it is za time on Firedoglake ven ve daunce…”

I’ve got a little tear in my eye…

Can I be president?

It seems to be a requirement to shed a few tears these days.

Re:

most Democratic ward in the state.

Which city? Thx. :)

Does this mean Ed Muskie has a shot at the Presidency?

No. Unless he’s a zombie and been brought back to life somehow. He’s been dead almost twelve years.

Is she crying because she’s losing or because she fears for the American people at the hands of Obama?

Crying is fine and I think HRC’s reaction was sincere and touching.

But I was appalled by Jane’s reaction to JRE’s response yesterday.

“Misogynist, sexist, jerk?” At least she didn’t call him a “prick” like Matt Stoller, which is an absurd term to apply to someone you’re accusing of gender bias.

This is not the time to be buying into whatever spin the MSM chooses to couch the little press they afford JRE. The link that was provided was out of context and colored with the impressions that the reporter was trying to
sell.

JRE was in a no-win situation with the question that was posed to him.
He reacted cautiously, but appropriately for someone on the eve of a competitive primary. If he gave a more nurturing response I would have found that sexist and more patronizing, not what he ended up saying. I wouldn’t expect him to have been more touchy feely with someone like Giuliani, so why should he be that way with HC? So he gives a gender neutral, though appropriately competitive response and gets branded a misogynist by some of the leading lights of the progressive movement. Disappointing.

And the Big Dawg is certainly losing it. He too might be crying tonight:

Here’s Bill Clinton, flashing what the New York Sun calls “anger and frustration” when somebody asked him Monday whether strategist Mark Penn blew it Saturday by claiming — prematurely, as it turned out — that Obama had gotten no “bounce” out of Iowa.

“What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the senator from Punjab? Did you like that? Or what about the Obama handout that was covered up, the press never reported on, implying that I was a crook. Scouring me — scathing criticism over my financial reports. Ken Starr spent $70 million to find out that I wouldn’t take a nickel to see the cow jump over the moon.

“So you can take a shot at Mark Penn if you want. It wasn’t his best day. He was hurt. He felt badly we didn’t do better in Iowa. But the idea that one of these campaigns is positive and the other is negative when I know the reverse is true and I have seen it and I have been blistered by it for months is a little tough to take. Just because of the sanitizing coverage that’s in the media doesn’t mean the facts aren’t out there.

“It is wrong that Sen. Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time — not once, ‘Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war. And you took that speech you’re now running on off your Web site in 2004. And there’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since.’ Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

There, there…(dabs Smgumby’s cheek with tissue…)

NH is where I’m from. Exeter Havent been there in years but love it when they show my town.

Re:

No. Unless he’s a zombie

Well, all the other candidates are zombies…

It depends. Boehner gets to blubber on the floor of the House because (1) his constituents believe his brand of bullshit and (2) he already has the job. Hillary doesn’t get to blubber because the constituency she’s addressing is 300,000,000 strong and she doesn’t already have the job.

Besides, I heard her on NPR last night on the way home from work. It wasn’t a good thing. /martha

Blue Texan, thank you for recognizing what should have been so obvious, that politicians are humans. So much has been made of Hillary’s eyes tearing up in an emotional display, yet it was such a human moment. Most people instinctively want to go and put their arms around this person; the sharks could only ridicule and deride her humanity. Thanks so much for putting this episode into its proper prospective.

Disclaimer: I have not been a Hillary fan, but not because I think she’s a horrible person or any of the other terrible things that are said about her and Bill. I simply do not like her policies as much as I like others. But I’m not overly fond of Obama either. It remains to be seen whether he is all talk or whether there is something within that talk. I really liked JFK too, because of his oratory, but I was not enamored with him as President. I actually preferred LBJ because he knew how to get things done and pushed a lot of good legislation through for the poor and downtrodden, as well as for civil rights. So far I think Obama will be more like JFK. I think Edwards will be more like LBJ without the rough edges, so he’s who I’ve chosen as my candidate, although I was not pleased with his reaction to Hillary’s teary eyes. OTOH, I would certainly not ever do what Amanda Marcotte did: pull my support for Edwards in protest and hand my support to Hillary’s worst nightmare. If she was protesting, logic tells me that she should give her support to the victim, not collude with her even more real competition. That’s just illogical!

Hillary feels entitled and Bill keeps confirming that. Wrong

Just curious. What would have been a more appropriate response to HRC’s tears other than “no comment”?

Hillary’s teariness didn’t bother me. What did bother me was the part after that, where she regrouped and talked about how some of us want this and some of us want that… and some of us are ready to lead on day one. It seemed to me as if she was trying to use people’s sympathy for her and to get them to sympathize with the fact that she deserves to be the person leading on day one. As if the tears were in the service of that. As if she said, I’m emotional at the thought that I’m best to lead this country I care about and therefore I’m pained at the thought that someone else, not as prepared, could get to do that.

In my view if you truly care about your country, if that was indeed the reason for her tears, then you put your country first, you put the voters first, you understand that they get to choose who’s there “on day 1,” and you care about their right to choose.

Just my take. So it wasn’t the teary moment that bothered me. It was the subsequent entitlement she expressed in connection with that.

But ironically none of the people on that list are fit to lead (and de facto lead)

But that point is never made as a result of them crying by the corporate media/talking heads.

Well stated. I feel the exact same way. He treated HRC like any other candidate, Male or Female, Period. I guess some progressives feel you should get a pass based on gender.

Just curious. What would have been a more appropriate response to HRC’s tears other than “no comment”?

Elizabeth Edwards once again had it right. She said that a race like this is extremely grueling and showed some sympathy without being saccharine or disloyal to her husband at all. Maybe sympathetic is not the right word, maybe it is understanding and empathetic.

I would have liked to hear something like:
I would prefer something like this:

“I believe all of us on the Democratic side can become somewhat emotional if we allow ourselves to dwell on what has been done in the last seven years to our justice system, our international credibility and support, checks and balances within our government, our middle class, and virtually every other aspect in which government is supposed to work for the good of the nation. I know, that like all of us, Hillary will continue to concentrate on the solutions as she sees them. I will do the same and I am confindent the electorate will choose the best person to carry the democfratic banner into the general election.

I still have a problem with branding “HILLARY!” Then getting angry when her sex comes up.

Good post BT, but Boehner may be a bridge too far.

Boehner is House Minority Leader and before that, Majority Leader. That’s a big position, and the guy cries like every other day on the House floor and it’s just dandy.

If Pelosi cried as often as Boehner, does anyone doubt that her fitness to lead would be questioned?

Personally, I think this would be a better world if there were more crying.

Bloomberg affair in Oklahoma fizzles.

It wasn’t intended as a serious criticism. I thought the rest of the comment made that clear. Sorry. Now get hold of yourself.

Tears in every pot! Go for it!

Ann @ 37, your recount of E Edwards reaction works for me as a spot-on intuitive response. Elizabeth Edwards for President? Crosstimbers @ 38, that’s all well and good…but highly unlikely a response in an extemporaneous situation such as Edwards was presented with. I do think that goes along with Elizabeth’s regard for John–that he won’t blink. He’s strong, declarative, and I didn’t have a problem at all with his response. As usual it’s the “experts” trying to pin spin.

Prairie Sunshine is Culling the Heard today.

we have a zombie for VP now. how long has Cheney been dead?

Now get hold of yourself.

I did get a little choked up by that criticism, but there’s nothing wrong with that.

Excellent…saw Boren on the NewsHour last night and he looked like a big, deflated balloon that didn’t know it had deflated.

Just my take. So it wasn’t the teary moment that bothered me. It was the subsequent entitlement she expressed in connection with that.

Yep. My take as well. Here’s what she said one New York nanosecond after she teared up:

“I’ve had so many wonderful opportunities in this country,” she said, her voice catching. “This is very personal for me. It’s not just political. It’s not just public.”

“Some people think elections are a game,” she said went on. “It’s about our country. It’s about our kids’ futures. It’s really about all of us together. You know some of us put ourselves and do this against some pretty difficult odds. And we do it, each one of us because we care about our country. Some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not.”

She went right back to attacking Obama.

Bloombucks little ego trip was trying to draw lustre away from the NH primary. Sorry, Bloombucks, America ain’t buyin’ what you’re sellin’

;)

Turning it against the opposition. That would have been cool! What the Bushies have done to our country would justify all kinds of tears.

has anyone seen him? `g`

I didn’t hear or see the John Edwards response which some interpreted as mean spirited. I did see Obama’s surly, “You’re likeable enought, Hillary,” and it decreased my opinion of him. I like Edwards very much, but would be disappointed if he tried to make something out of HRC’s emotional moment. It should be noted that he approved of the ad in which his representative got teary-eyed over the loss of his job and Edwards’ honesty in talking to his son. If you think playing on emotion is wrong, that would appear more pre-meditated than HRC’s action.

Crying is good for the soul, if you have one. Too many sociopathic manipulators out there.

Thank you for adding that, biodun. That’s why she won’t make it. It’s about her, not about the voters. In a year where the voters are wanting to be the focus.

Whoever wins is the one who connects with the voters and puts their aspirations first. And after that, we will remind the person over and over and over… WE the People are the reason for the Constitution!

Guess what Guliani says about Hill’s tears?

The reality is, if you look at me, September 11 — the funerals, the memorial services — there were times in which it was impossible not to feel the emotion.

My overall feeling is that we all get too caught up in scrutinizing every statement and movement of the candidates. Actually, we would have been far better off it Ed Muskie had been elected in 1968, even if he broke down in tears every day.

and why Obama is so strong

This was such a good post, Blue Texan. You know, I don’t talk about this often, but when I read firedoglake, I frequently get emotional too.

Thank you so much.

Exactly! *g*

The American public is tired of rich old white guys driving this country into the ditch. Bloomberg don’t stand a chance.

If any of the opponents were really tough, they would have said what my mother on rare occasions to me: “Shut up, or I’ll give you something to cry about.”

sniff

snort

HONK

!Exactamente!

As a result of his reaction and lame attack on Clinton yesterday
Edwards is dead to me.

Re:

The American public is tired of rich old white guys driving this country into the ditch.

Exactly, we need a handsome young black guy to drive us into that ditch! Time for a Change, America! Fired Up! Ready to… omigod, look out for that tree…

She probably fears a Repub bubba win over Obama in the general and then more neocon rule and the official renaming of the country as the Homeland…(1/2 s).

She knows what the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is up to. She identified it way before anyone else talked about it…way before the DOJ was politicized…way before the unitary executive power grab took hold….

Problem is…she and Bill have been part of the problem by cozying up to those very factors and their way of doing business. You can’t have it both ways. JMHO

The “Taming of the Shrew” in the Sixteenth Twentieth Twenty-First Century

eriposte

How so? What part of what he said bothered you so deeply?

Thank you Blue Texan for addressing this double standard of what is allowed for women compared to what is allowed for men. It’s like telling a woman Crying! There’s no crying in politics! Men can do it and it shows sensitivity but women can’t.

I disagree with Hillary on issues but I refuse to female bash under the guise of disagreement on political positions. Karl Rove must be giggling uncontrollably at the Hillary mockery for getting a little emotional.

I’ll bet she is worn out, disappointed, hurt from getting kicked in the face over and over. OK. So the woman is down. Perfect. Let’s keep kicking her.

For me to join the mob frenzy on Hillary bashing would be turning on every other woman, myself included. This isn’t policy disagreements. This is age old female bashing.

She is not my choice of candidate based on her record and current positions. Criticism I’ll keep separate from female bashing. Why do I want to do that to myself? Yep, Jacob Bronowski said it clearly in The Ascent of Man. No way will the male allow females to rise. Criticism is totally different from beating up the person.

o/` Oh, blinding light. Oh, light that blinds. I cannot see. Look out for meeeeeee… o/`

/Firesign Theatre

She went right back to attacking Obama.

But Biodun, what if she believes that he’s not ready. You also have to remember, here is a woman in the midst of a very heavy political campaign, one in which she’s been told for at least four years that she would be the presumptive nominee of the party. She’s seeing her entire political career go up in smoke to a newcomer. You can’t be expecting her to just lay down and not fight for her career, can you?

Christy has a nice new post upstairs for us.

like Obama is not attacking her. His campaign is nothing but a big Clinton attack machine. Plus Obama is a big whinny baby..eveything is unfair to them…especially a discussion of his record.

We are supposed to take everything on faith with him…the anti gay personalities, the less than stellar positions on choice…..

he has to defend his record just like everyone else. David Axlerod is a creepy guy with bad clients so don’t expect anything to be differnt
they simply relabel where they get money and try to pretend they are better
word matter.

Hey, Steve AR. I was wondering where you’d been.

I loved the Firesign Theatre when they were fresh back in the ’60s. They really grooved on the zeitgeist, man.

christy:

That’s a neat title to the post. But you don’t you write your own headlines, do you? I’m told nobody does that.

ward 1 Portsmouth NH

Sadly, as the different treatment for the Boehners and Bushes indicates (Cheney never shows any emotion – now that’s a mature adult), this is not about leadership or maturity, or even good histrionics. (Boehner’s crocodile tears wouldn’t qualify there.) It’s an expression of ruling by division, of using whatever emotional prejudice that can be made to stick.

Be it tears, cleavage, age, wrinkles, short skirts, unforgiving, or shrill. Or be it coiffed, quaffed, surprisingly good for a …, short or ugly. The lists for Hillary and her male colleagues are endless. They’re made by specialists skilled in the art of emotional manipulation for a business purpose. The purpose is to keep the GOP in office and liability free, and to make their Democratic opponents as ineffective as possible.

Thankfully, Main Street is beginning to see through the machinations of today’s GOP. But pointed reminders are always a good idea.

i think there’s a difference between being compassionate and being emotional… shedding tears is nothing to be ashamed of and not in itself a bad thing- depends on what for. and the stereotype that women are “emotional” and men are “analytical” is just that.

but decisions in the white house should NOT be made emotionally. bush and the right wing have fed off emotion to justify a war on islam, so the public can feel good that “we” are getting back at the bastards who attacked us, whether or not it’s actually true or not.

there is a double standard because of the subtext of the stereotype that the media perpetuates about a woman being emotional, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who says something about hillary is sexist.

if guliani or romney or anyone else teared up about the grueling campaign, boo fucking hoo, who the fuck cares? hillary tears up about the campaign, boo fucking hoo again, who cares? they can cry about whatever they feel like. but does is affect my opinion of them? let them shed some of their alligator tears on the dead from this war, or the uninsured, or the uneducated, or katrina… or any of the multiple things that they perpetuated or stood idly by (that’s a general statement, i’m not saying that hillary had anything to do with katrina debacle etc)

Arianna is the one who has been attacking Hillary from every angle. Maybe because Hillary married the heterosexual?

If you say the opponent didn’t really earn those medals, that his service in Vietnam, that’s a smear, and going negative, what you call an attack. If you say that your opponent has a miserable health care plan — true, in this case — or that he says a lot of stuff that he never gives the details for, that’s not a smear, that’s not an attack, that’s called campaigning. Obama’s handlers do the heavy attacking, and then of course, his wild-eyed minions on the Internet do the rest.

The Big Dog is right in every word.

Boehner gets to blubber on the floor of the House because (1) his constituents believe his brand of bullshit and (2) he already has the job. Hillary doesn’t get to blubber because the constituency she’s addressing is 300,000,000 strong and she doesn’t already have the job.

Boehner looked and sounded drunk the time he blubbered about the 3,000 Americans killed on September 11th. I can’t imagine the reaction to Hillary showing the effects of liquor at any time or on any occasion. If it ever happened, she would be called a lush and a fallen woman, etc. Was Boehner really drunk while addressing the House of Representatives? It certainly looked that way to me.

Oh, here it is – the link. Tell me Boehner hasn’t been boozing it up at lunch. He’s slurring his words and weaving to keep his balance. He’s a sentimental drunk. God damn …. three thousand people dead …. and we ain’t doing shit about it …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir1UABBe1v4

KatherineGrahamCracker@66:

“As a result of this…Edwards is now dead to me.”

Can we get your personal signature on that? :o)

I mean, with Hillary Clinton backing the flag-burning bill and the Kyl-Lieberman amendmant, and just generally sucking up to the rightwing, and with your defending her without ever responding to the specific facts about such things as her support for Liebermen in the Connecticut primary, and her attendance at the FoxNews birthday bash, and her schmoozing with Rupert Murdoch, I doubt if any of the Edwards supporters on here are exactly shitting their pants about you pulling your “support” for him.

:o)

Your premise is false and/or misleading that tears are a sign of someone who is not in control of emotions. Everyone has their own coping mechanisms. Tears or no tears. Everyone has their own way of losing it. Tears and no tears. I am a big fan of FDL, the compilation of crying politicians was worty, the opening reflection was poorly stated. Would you prefer a person who shows no outward emotion? Where do we draw the line? Between facial expressions, hand gesturing and tear duct secretion? What constitutes a unclear, emotion driven thinker? The mere appearance of tears. Some of the best novels paintings and songs have been forged from the tears of the artists. Maybe they werent thinknig clearly as you put it. Maybe they were trancending. Maybe tears or tear like thoughts are the gateway to the garden of self check (aka self development)Maybe our very survival depends on tearful or tearful like thinking.

Would rather have a bleeding heart than no heart at all.

with respect and kindness.

To be fair.

I have worked with and have known several people who use tears as a mere tool to get what they want or to get out of taking responsibility for mistakes.

Ultimate point being that the world is too dynamic for a tiny filter like the tear or no tear model you have offered.

More respect more kindness.

Where we stand:

I understand everybody has their opinion and there are differences. I hope we can stick to civil discussion and remember we’re all working to find the best candidate to be president to fulfill OUR needs and desires. At least now, this far into the campaign, they have all gravitated towards certain issues which the voters have told them are important. Actually, even the Republicans are talking about those same issues too. That’s a great starting point. We agree on direction, if not details of how to get there.

Let’s work through our differences and succeed together!

My view of the candidates, as of today:

I like Edwards and support him. His people-first view is very appealing to me. His trial lawyer experience shows his commitment to fighting corporate power and abuses and it shows he’s a high achiever.

I respect Hillary, but differ on some issues and on her support from corpocracy. She is definitely working it from the inside and, like Bill, trying to make progress where it’s possible. I admire her determination and patience for the slow grind.

Obama was entirely new to me with this campaign. I’ve been thinking he’s too green, makes mistakes and is somewhat vague. But, since his win in Iowa his campaign has shown itself to be very unappealing. I also read some of Paul Street’s article and didn’t like what I saw. Now what I’m seeing is someone who is opportunistic, not creative and definitely not a leader. I think it may be a result of how he learned in school and then taught Constitutional law. He’s a book guy at best.

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html