Having raised at least one reader’s ire by pointing out that
the Republican candidates at the last debate looked old – really old, and
tired, and, had I been even more honest, waspish, and, well, not very healthy—I’m
in a mood to re-offend.
By 8:30 am, I was already fed up with hearing the pundits
analyze Hillary Clinton’s unexpected triumph in New Hampshire.
It’s the tears, they said, to a man or woman. The main bone
of contention: did that wateryness work for her or against her? With this,
Hillary finally bested Britney Spears in the circle of unfathomable public
interest.
For a brief while, Hillary got emotional enough to mist over
and say “Ain’t I a woman too. . .? “ oh wait: that was Sojourner Truth. Clinton said, through
exhaustion and frustration, of course I care, and I’m afraid of our country losing
ground. (Close enough, anyway.)
Criminal psychology professor Aubrey Immelman told WPR
listeners this morning that Clinton’s personality
profile showed her to be high on domination, narcissism, and something else
related to taking personal responsibility—all characteristics that normally are
considered positive in a president. But not, apparently, if he’s a she.
The tears came from her being thwarted, the professor
assured the audience.
A listener chimed in to rant about Clinton’s mood swings and how, well, you
really can’t trust this woman to do
the hard work on account of those mood swings. Those of you who've heard Clinton faulted for being rock steady, or who have heard something like this before about any generic woman, will shake your heads.
“Really, she shows no emotionality on our scales,” Immelman
responded. “Actually, George Bush had the highest rating there.” But no matter:
the damage of the mood swing label was done.
Maureen Dowd brought to bear all her own amateur high school
psychologist credentials in
today’s "Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?"
She became emotional because she feared that she had
reached her political midnight, when she would suddenly revert to the school
girl with geeky glasses and frizzy hair, smart but not the favorite. All those
years in the shadow of one Natural, only to face the prospect of being eclipsed
by another Natural?
For the first time, I find myself longing for some pure,
unadulterated, Ann Coulter mean-girl nastiness, uncouched in psychobabble. It's always worse when the bad behavior comes from your side.
For clearer heads, it often helps to head across the pond. Michael
Tomasky of the Guardian Unlimited provides the best analysis of what happened in New Hampshire:
Clinton won
by a little more than 6,000. So - again, in the space of just 24 hours - a huge
number of voters, thousands of them, changed their minds. Why?
I think it was mostly a rebellion by women voters against the media. Most
major media outlets had written Clinton's
obituary and could barely conceal their joy in doing so. And voters, especially
women voters, said: not so fast.
I've seen this happen before. In the fall of 2000, she debated her opponent
in the race for the New York
senate seat she won that year. The opponent, Rick Lazio, strode over to her
podium and wagged his finger in her face. The media loved the moment,
thought Lazio looked tough and declared him the winner.
But over the next couple days, it emerged in polling that people, especially
women, thought Clinton
had won the debate. The media missed what had really happened, and reported
with glee on Clinton's
alleged comeuppance. And they helped drive voters, mostly but not wholly women,
into Clinton's
camp. She took a lead in the polls after that debate that she never
relinquished.
Yep. That’s about it. If you don’t want to be surprised, you might stop
underestimating women. We just might know where the biggest manipulation is
coming from.
Even those of us on the Obamarama just might get so tired of the stupidity and nastiness that we start thinking again about what really makes someone an insider.
