Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

COLUMN: There is no crying in politics, is there?
By Stephen Kelly
Kansas State Collegian (Kansas State U.)
01/18/2008

(U-WIRE) MANHATTAN, Kan. — Minutes after the results of the New Hampshire Democratic primary were released, news of Hillary Clinton's victory over Barack Obama spread nationwide like the latest celebrity scandal.

It seems analysts were wrong in predicting Obama would take New Hampshire, though he was polling well ahead of Hillary before the votes started pouring in. This surprising turnaround victory led many to wonder why the experts missed the mark. While some people chalked up her victory to coincidence, others pointed their fingers at a more questionable reason — the sympathy vote.

On Jan. 7, just one day before the primary, Hillary met with New Hampshire voters in a coffee shop to answer questions.

At one point in the session, she went off on an impassioned tangent.

"I just don't want to see us fall backward as a nation," Hillary said, her eyes glistening with tears. "I mean, this is very personal for me. Not just political. I see what's happening. We have to reverse it. Some people think elections are a game: who's up or who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' future. It's about all of us together."

The rhetoric alone wasn't unique or exceptionally moving, but the fact that it was coupled with tears made it stand out like a lime-green suit at a funeral.

And this is from Hillary of all people — a woman who has often been labeled an "ice queen" for her frosty disposition. The real reason for the ruckus is not the tears themselves, but the motivation behind them. Many people harbor suspicions that the tears were fake -- a political ploy to counter whispers of her inhumanity and make her more appealing to the public.

Bill Kristol, editor of the politically conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, even went as far as saying on the Fox News Channel that night, "It's the tears. She pretended to cry, the women felt sorry for her, and she won."

Though the primary's results confirm that more women voted for Hillary than for Obama — 47 percent to 34 percent, respectively — people like Kristol go too far by claiming she won because of the women's sympathy vote. For one, that kind of chauvinistic thinking does nothing but aggravate the already sore issue of gender equality. I realize it's no secret women are generally more sensitive and sympathetic than men. Still, that doesn't mean a few tears render them incapable of making rational decisions.

Besides, I doubt the women of New Hampshire — or women in general — appreciate being slapped with a comment that essentially refers to them as emotional saps.

Hillary's critics don't want to see a gender rift appear within the electorate, I think they should start choosing their words a little more wisely. I can't rule out the possibility that the tears were fake, but if that was the case, I can't say I'd blame her. Pulling a stunt like that might be a bit underhanded and dishonest, but it's smart politics, and Hillary's opponents know it.

If appealing to people's emotions gives you even the slightest edge over your opponents, why not go for it? I bet the other candidates wouldn't hesitate to show a little feeling if they were certain it would gain them a few votes. Does this mean we might see other candidates dissolving into waterworks? I wouldn't count on it, mainly because I don't think they would want to risk ruining their generally stolid reputations.

But hey, it's still a long time until November. Perhaps we'll see a few more showers after all.

[ Back to Student Voices ]