Remember at the beginning of January, just hours before the New Hampshire primary, and days after a devastating loss to Sen. Barack Obama in the Iowa caucuses, Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton teared-up in front of the camera, and a sycophantic media fell for it hook, line, and sinker?
Of course, many political pundits felt this was partially responsible for her victory in New Hampshire the following day.
Now, with polls showing Obama in very good position to shock the world in tomorrow's Super Tuesday primaries, Hillary's tearing up again (video available here), raising some very important, albeit likely obvious questions:
- Will media fall for this again?
- Will television stations coast to coast show this video every hour on the hour for maximum effect?
- Will this show of emotion propel her to success around the country during these critical primaries?
In sum, will media really allow Hillary to cry her way into the White House?
*****Update: Suddenly, my mind wanders to Smokey Robinson and the Miracles (video available here):
Now if there's a smile on my face
It's only there trying to fool the public
But when it comes down to fooling you
Now honey that's quite a different subject
But don't let my glad expression
Give you the wrong impression
'Cause really I'm sad, Oh I'm sadder than sad
Well I'm hurt and I want you so bad
Like a clown I appear to be glad ooh yeah
[Chorus:]
Well they're some sad things known to man
But ain't too much sadder than
The tears of a clown when there's no one around
Oh yeah, baby baby, oh yeah baby baby
Now if I appear to be carefree
It's only to camouflage my sadness
And honey to shield my pride I try
To cover this hurt with a show of gladness
But don't let my show convince you
That I've been happy since you
'Cause I need to go, oh I need you so
Look I'm hurt and I want you to know
For others I put on a show ...
[Chorus]
Just like Pagliacci did
I try to keep my surface hid
Smiling in the crowd I try
But in a lonely room I cry
The tears of a clown
When there's no one around, oh yeah, baby baby
Now if there's a smile on my face
Don't let my glad expression
Give you the wrong impression
Don't let this smile I wear
Make you think that I don't care
Actually, I always thought the English Beat's version was much better.
*****Update II: Another question comes to mind -- when media report this, will they advise readers and viewers of how Hillary was again crying about herself, and not someone else's suffering?
If you recall the first episode, Hillary was crying about her own struggles on the campaign, NOT about anyone else's hardships.
The media missed this nuance!
This recent bout of emotion came as someone spoke about HER and HER accomplishments, not about what was going on in Iraq, or poor people's struggles here at home!
HER!
Will media report that, or just that she once again cried?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Talk about a crocodile's
February 4, 2008 - 15:20 ET by Chris NormanTalk about a crocodile's tears...
Her road to
February 4, 2008 - 15:36 ET by MidAmericaHer road to the Whitehouse biography titled: "The Trail of Tears".
I think people of all
February 4, 2008 - 15:42 ET by bigtimerI think people of all stripes are to the point of Fool Me Once attitude with her waah waahing....especially those in the bag for Obama in the msm....heheee
By the way...I think in this case with her so-called tear...it'll be more like "A Little Bitty Tear Let Me Down"...lol!
I think this is what she was crying about...
February 4, 2008 - 15:56 ET by Hermanohttp://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/267973.html
The link regards her pledge to bring 200,000 new jobs to upstate NY. She, of course, blames Republicans for not being able to deliver on this "exuberant" promise.
Noel, do you WANT Obama to win the nomination?
February 4, 2008 - 16:07 ET by Missouri ConservativeObama winning the nomination would be a disaster for the GOP and conservatism.
Obama winning = Democrat president and long coattails in congressional races, which means increased majorities.
Hillary winning the nomination = GOP retains the White House and scores of redstate Dems go down to defeat. The GOP makes major inroads in the House and the damage is minimal in the Senate.
Noel, I get the impression that you Obama winning is a good thing. Why?
"women and minorities hardest hit"
MC
February 4, 2008 - 17:11 ET by Noel SheppardMC,
Fair question. My answer? I believe the Clintons back in the White House would be FAR worse for our country than an Obama victory for a variety of reasons.
First, the Clintons would be a far more formidable force given their years in politics and subsequent influence. They will be able to bully and control members of Congress far more effectively than Obama. Regardless of how close the final tally in November, the Clintons will behave as if they were given a mandate, and many on the left and in the center will see it this way, too. As such, I fear that four to eight more years of the Clintons will represent a serious security and economic threat to our nation.
By contrast, Obama would come in with far less power. In fact, I believe that many Congressional Democrats are backing him because they feel they'll be able to push him around. Furthermore, Congressional Republicans are far less likely to be bullied by Obama than the Clintons.
As such, he could be a much lamer duck from day one than Billary. Make sense?
Another thing that bothers me is the potential for a race war in our nation if Hillary wins. As I've asked in my posts concerning their recent race baiting, how are blacks in this country going to feel if Obama loses because the Clintons played the race card? How many of our nation's minorities will feel that way? Won't a Billary victory, very much tied to race, set back race relations in our country by many years nay decades?
I think the answer is a strong "Yes," and it very much concerns me.
Finally, do I think Obama would be more difficult to beat than Hillary? Not necessarily. Frankly, I think he'll be easier for us to beat depending on what happens tomorrow. ns
Noel, thanks for the honest, open answer.
February 4, 2008 - 17:46 ET by Missouri ConservativeI love your stuff here at Newsbusters (this is one of my favorites blogs), but I have to respectfully disagree.
1. Hillary will fill GOP coffers with hundreds of millions in campaign cash.
2. Red state Democrats are scared to death of running with her at the top of the ticket. She will indeed have a drag effect.
3. I disagree with Hillary being more powerful as president. On the contrary, I feel like the Republicans will be mobilized and unified against her. They will be free to do so because they can act as a foil to the old Clinton bogeyman. Obama is far more likable and if he should win, the Republicans cannot oppose him as easily.
4. In a year where the GOP is already behind the 8-ball, the prospect of Hillary being back in the White House will mobilize and energize our base (our candidates obviously cannot do it on their own unforunately). She will drive independents to our side as well. I wish that our own guys could inspire the base, but since they aren't for the most part, I'll take every advantage we can get.
What would like to see happen on the GOP side tomorrow....out of curiosity?
I'm voting Romney.
"women and minorities hardest hit"
MS
February 4, 2008 - 18:05 ET by Noel SheppardMS,
These of course are the arguments many on the right are making, and I don't necessarily disagree with them, although I'm not sure they will come to pass.
Someone said something interesting to me in Nebraska over the weekend: primaries are about ideology, elections are about reality.
Think about it. Very interesting.
In the end, I think Republicans are going to come out in droves this November regardless of who the nominees are for either Party. Why? Because maybe not since Reagan/Mondale has an election been so much about political differences versus personalities.
Bush 41 beat Dukakis because of the latter's persona, which was lousy. Clinton beat Bush 41 because of Ross Perot, and Dole because of his boring persona. George W. beat Gore because of his lousy persona, and ditto Kerry.
By contrast today, as a result of the Dems recent shift further to the left, this election is a battle between socialism and capitalism, as well as a war between appeasement and strong national security. As fiscal and defense matters are the backbone of the Republican Party, I don't think it means a hill of beans who the candidates are come the first Tuesday in November.
We Republicans don't need hatred of Hillary to motivate us nine months from tomorrow. Instead, we need a love of capitalism and national security to drive us over the finish line. Mix in our hatred of socialism and a weakened military -- especially in a post-9/11 world -- and if this isn't enough to get people to the polls, we really are in trouble as a democracy.
Who am I voting for tomorrow? Honestly, I haven't made up my mind. A few weeks ago, I would have said Romney. Today, I'm waffling, although it will probably still be Mitt. This is going to be a gameday decision.
However, I will state unequivocally that whoever our nominee is, I'm firmly behind him in November, for the Democrats want to move our nation back to the '30s, advance socialism as far as it goes, and castrate this country in the name of internationalism.
For the sake of my children and future grandchildren, I will do everything to stop this, including voting for a RINO this fall!!! ns
I'm wit ju, Noel....
February 4, 2008 - 19:58 ET by JayTeeWe don't always get what we want (McCain), but we get what we Need (Democratic Defeat).
Rush L. and Company can save their emotional outbursts for the Republican National Committee........Vote for who you want, but the eventual Republican nominee is what we need to Defeat the Democratic nominee. After the Defeat, we'll negotiate the rest.
The Only way Obama has been able to Catch Hillary in the Primaries, is because of her negative ratings, NOT his empty speeches of Change, Hope, Diplomacy, Peace, and his willing suspension of Dis-belief in the Principles of the Constituion......But Hillary's lack of support has allowed his NASCAR surge to blow her doors off.
Ted Keenedy could have caught her in a Race, with one glass of Schnapps tied behind is back.
McCain ain't in yet, we still have 24 hrs to see if he can muster a 1000 more delegates.
Short answer, yes. The
February 4, 2008 - 16:20 ET by mattmShort answer, yes. The Clinton Machine is going after segments of voters, including the emo voters.
Just what we need.. HRC
February 4, 2008 - 16:29 ET by motherbeltJust what we need.. HRC giving hell to Ahmedinejad, and tearing up as she tells him how much she wants for the people of Iran....and as he walks away in disgust...Wait minute!!! don't go!! You want tough?? I can DO tough!! come back, give me a minute!!!!
What in the world?
February 4, 2008 - 16:29 ET by docbCan they really believe that a World leader would buckle like this...Look at this sham of a person and tell me about 'vetted'. No way in hell.
She is losing and caught out --that is the reason for the tears.
Yet, it would be far more
February 4, 2008 - 17:44 ET by Chris NormanYet, it would be far more believable and in character if she were screaming and throwing lamps...
Kate Snow? Claire
February 4, 2008 - 17:37 ET by fitzfongKate Snow? Claire Shipman? The hags on the View? Slick Willie's dog Wolf Blitzer? The Clinton News Network? You bet they're going to milk this. Hopefully the electorate will be on to the "Girl Who Cried Wolf" scam...but I doubt it.
Clinton crocodile tears
February 4, 2008 - 19:40 ET by TheTruthThe Clintons sure know how to turn on the crocodile tears on demand. . .
Video: Bill Clinton Seen Laughing, Then “Crying” At Ron Brown Funeral
MSM: Arrogant intellectually dishonest LIBERALS teaching those stupid peasants how to vote by way of selective reporting, misinformation, propaganda, and out right lies.
First time...Zero Tears....some verbal crying
February 4, 2008 - 19:44 ET by JayTeeThere were NO TEARS the first time around, we had a cracking voice, emotion, and possibly some verbal crying, but I saw the Video, there were NO TEARS. It's starting to turn into an Urban legend, From the reality of an emotional cracking voice, to the Legend of Tears.
This time around, I'm seeing wet stuff in Hillary's Eyes. We got liftoff on Tears.
This is how McCain gets in the Lead, The MSM gives out partial truths...... and pretty soon it's Gosphel. Now we're hearing "2nd Time" on tears, when it's really a 2nd emotional moment.
Ir Obamarama kills off her Dream presidency, we'll see some TEARS. Bill's gonna feel her Pain, and probably feel free to Divorce her after the loss.
Remember Waco, Janet Reno, Tears ?
February 4, 2008 - 20:10 ET by JayTeeJanet Reno didn't Cry.......Janet Reno for VP !!
We could have Two Women for Pres/VP.
We could have One Black man, one white Woman (who was married to the first Black president)
We could have Two Black Men as Pres./VP (If obama so chooses)
We Could have also have Black man/Black Woman or White Woman/Black woman or throw in an Illegal Alien in the Mix and go for the Mexican vote, or throw in Arnold Swatzernigger and get the Green Card vote. What ? ...Aw ignore the Constitution for now, we don't need no stinking 22nd Amendment.
But Hey, I digress, this Presidential Race isn't about Race.....Uh..well you know what I mean.
Tears?
February 4, 2008 - 21:56 ET by kmcJanuary is the month of resolutions. By the beginning of February, many of those noble efforts have been broken, or cast aside for next Year. For women, the television ads for frozen dinners centers around losing weight. Hillary needs to lose some weight. Are women voters more likely to vote for Hillary if she sheds a few tears or were to shed some pounds? If she gets elected, the toilets in the White House will again be under the biggest strain since Teddy Roosevelt. New warning signs will have to be added to the front lawn and plaques at the front door announcing that a sex offender lives at this residence
Is that the way we want to greet our foreign leaders?