Hardball panel ponders reasons Clinton "tear[ed] up" with Yale former colleagues
On the February 4 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) appearance earlier that day at the Yale Child Study Center -- which the Associated Press described as "an emotional reunion Monday with a colleague from the early days of her legal career as a child advocate" -- host Chris Matthews said, "Hillary Clinton, this question of tearing up, is this now become part of the story line of this campaign?" Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson remarked: "[W]ith some people it's sad movies; with some people, they see a puppy, they want to -- with Hillary Clinton ... it's an impending primary. It just breaks her down." Bloomberg columnist Margaret Carlson asserted that "I think the tears are genuine," before adding, "I think the cause is maybe different than just going back to a place she once worked where she has good memories and they welcomed her." She continued, "But that she's extremely fatigued -- as they all are -- under tremendous pressure. Because the pressure isn't just from without, the pressure is from within. 'What are you doing wrong? Why can't you fix it? Maybe you should cry more often.' All those kinds of things inside a campaign. And then the very thing she thought was hers." Carlson said, "Remember, she was inevitable. Everyone around her told her that. And now she sees it not as inevitable and receding possibly from her grasp, and it's very distressing. I would cry, too."
Carlson was responding to host Chris Matthews' question: "Margaret, what is your judgment on the veracity, the verisimilitude, the genuine nature of that scene we just saw of Senator Clinton where she was obvious -- well, she was taken to some extent with a very warm greeting from an old classmate?"
From the February 4 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Hillary Clinton, this question of tearing up, is this now become part of the story line of this campaign?
JILL ZUCKMAN (Chicago Tribune reporter): You're not suggesting that she teared up on purpose in order to win tomorrow, are you? I --
MATTHEWS: Well, you have that interesting grin on your face as you ask that question.
ZUCKMAN: I've got to say, I think that when people tear up, they tear up. I don't think you can really turn it on and off very easily. I mean, she doesn't --
MATTHEWS: She's not a method actress.
ZUCKMAN: I don't think she's really someone who cries very easily, and we certainly haven't seen much of it in the past.
MATTHEWS: I'm going to suspend my judgment until Gene has spoken.
ROBINSON: No, with some people it's sad movies; with some people, they see a puppy, they want to -- with Hillary Clinton, it's a --
[crosstalk]
MATTHEWS: It's me, I cry in movies. It works for me.
ROBINSON: -- it's an impending primary. It just breaks her down.
MATTHEWS: I usually cry at heroic scenes when somebody does something really great in the movies that you don't expect them to.
Margaret, what is your judgment on the veracity, the verisimilitude, the genuine nature of that scene we just saw of Senator Clinton where she was obvious -- well, she was taken to some extent with a very warm greeting from an old classmate?
CARLSON: I think the tears are genuine. I think the cause is maybe different than just going back to a place she once worked where she has good memories and they welcomed her. But that she's extremely fatigued -- as they all are -- under tremendous pressure. Because the pressure isn't just from without, the pressure is from within. "What are you doing wrong? Why can't you fix it? Maybe you should cry more often." All those kinds of things inside a campaign. And then the very thing she thought was hers. Remember, she was inevitable. Everyone around her told her that. And now she sees it not as inevitable and receding possibly from her grasp, and it's very distressing. I would cry, too.
MATTHEWS: You know, I wonder what we're focusing more on this than we would if it were a male candidate. But, that said, [1972 Democratic presidential candidate] Ed Muskie, an old pal of mine -- I really looked up to him; I worked for him -- was blown away in a presidential campaign because he -- David Broder of your paper [The Washington Post] reported once that he had cried and then later said he may have gotten that wrong. It was an interesting bit of revisionism.
I was watching this thinking what a waste of airtime the segment was.
Hey Tweety - We're human - we laugh - we cry - we get emotional. It's not NEWS and no one really cares.
Hillary is just another example of how human politicians can be when they're running on fumes. Whether it is on the campaign trail or in the course of performing their elected or appointed duties. These people are often sleep deprived and under enormous stress. Is it any wonder why members of Congress are always at each other's throats?
Anyway, T-Prog has numerous examples of tearful moments in rightwing history:
Bush 41, Bush 43, Robert Gates and Mitt Romney
Boehner
Boehner
Boehner
"Hillary Clinton, this question of tearing up, is this now become part of the story line of this campaign?"
Only to the media & in particular Matthews. Also each of his guests seemed to revel in this stupidity as well. Their bias against Hillary is not only showing, it's flashing like a neon sign!
Plus, the audience SEES the clip, and DOES NOT see this "tearing up" that's being used as the basic premise for all kinds of guessing and speculation and narrative-building.
She MENTIONS that she feared she would be fighting emotions, which is both normal and unremarkable, but we don't see she DID "tear up". In fact, it looked like she kept complete control, except for somewhat losing her voice (understandable).
Matthews, wanna talk about BIAS, had McCain listed as the NUMBER ONE POWER PLAYER, the one MOST LIKELY to win the Presidency. And the banner declared "MASTER AND COMMANDER". An annointing.
Then Matthews EXPLAINS why he gave McCain the MOST LIKELY position: Since Hillary and Obama are virtually tied in the polls, he "awarded" them 50% apiece, but because it looks like McCain is going to beat Romney, Matthews awarded HIM 100% most likely to be president.
This "methodology" is handy, because it allows Matthews total discretion to promote his own pick for president as prohibitively ahead and victorious. Or, shall we say, "inevitable".
KROME:
OF COURSE people are "buying what they're selling". Our tradition is one of TRUST, and we EXPECT people to deliver goods as they SHOULD. We are supposed to have a FREE PRESS, exercising FREE SPPECH and giving the people the unbiased, accurate, and ethical FACTS about what's going on. Reporters are SUPPOSED to be trustworthy, you know, like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow, guys whose only dog in the fight is getting the TRUTH to THE PEOPLE.
Ah, those were the days. Now we have CORPORATE News, "info-tainment", and the cult of egotistical personality, and no compunction at all about having bias and blatantly promoting propaganda. To make matters horrendous, you have these hired guns CLAIMING to be "in the tradition", by being "Independent" (O'Reilly, Matthews, etc.) or "FAIR AND BALANCED" (all of FOX including Hume and Hannity). They're LYING about how OBJECTIVE they are.
So, YES, sadly, people are buying this crap. Which is why it is so great that there are sites like MMFA, of which MMFA is the BEST, to hold the MEDIA accountable for their utter culpability in FAILING at the job of "reporting the news". Every day, in every way, the "NEWS" is massaged and finessed and presented to reflect the CORPORATE view, which is rightwing and NeoCon.
In short, the American Public is being DEFRAUDED, and it's downright criminal. Our Media today has no shame, no honor, no professional standards, and no ethical underpinnings. They are prostitutes. And they have near monopolistic control.
You're so right Tex, that's why Clooney's "Good Night, Good Luck" was such an amazing and timely film. It's perhaps one of the most underrated films in the past decade. Despite its accolades it was only seen by a fairly small audience.
I attended j-school in the 80s because journalism was still a noble profession. Then it all changed. We were debating the encroachment of info-tainment back then and to see it blossom in the nineties and beyond is sad. In the late nineties FOX New successfully changed the dynamic by narrowcasting and targeting an obvious demographic and market, namely: the talk radio market. All they did was move it to another medium. At that point, all objectivity went out the window in favor of telling a select audience what they wanted to hear. Still a sad state of affairs, but such is life.
One of the old arguments against having a female president is that she would be overly emotional and especially that she would be emotionally weak in dealing with war. I think that sexist view is the underlying reason for this creepy discussion of "tears". Then they get to doubt the authenticity of her emotion because another assumption is that women are sly manipulators. So if the tears are real, then it is seen as a weakness. But they might not be real, which would be seen as a woman faking tears to get what she wants. Thanks to Media Matters for documenting years of this bias.
re: war, I doubt that a president H Clinton, or any other president, will be doing hand-to-hand Rambo combat with enemies in a war. The whole thing is utterly stupid.
Last night Matthews also said that women only have one shot at the presidency. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22998940#22998940
In his interview with Townsend and Michelman, he went on to discuss "mind set" leading up to the war. IMO I ask what about the mindset in the other candidate when it comes to a long-time relationship with Rezko. The lot next to the house in question here had no street access, so what would you want with a lot that can only be entered through the adjacent property?
Also, Matthew made a comment about the ERA being tried and failed about a 100 years ago. For someone who is suppose to know his history,or herstory I am surprised that he doesn't know that it has been reintroduced every year.
Excellent reading Robin Morgan
http://womensspace.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/good-bye-to-all-that-part-ii-by-robin-morgan/
This crying thing is trying to show weakness concerning women and their ability to be strong. The press always refers to Golda Mier(sic), Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandi as the women who have run countries. I believe that they have one thing in common..they all had wars during their tenure. And they all cried at one time or another. So using ConLogic..Hillary Clinton is qualified to be President of this country.
But if you ever believe in ConLogic, you will become a History buff which I am not. (see spellings above).
regrettably, it is not surprising. the media creates images by removing the context of events. the dean scream, i voted for it before i voted against it, al gore invented the internet.
It's inevitable despite the retro comments by Matthews & some of his guests that women will be on an equal footing.
It's interesting to study language..the word "emotion" is from the Latin: motion--to move; emotion--to move out, move away. Showing strong feeling is a strength, not a weakness; it can be a way to let go and move forward.
The current cartoon mentality that women need to be super macho (worst traits of men) will eventually give way.
It might have been a genuinely emotional moment, but I think she turned on the waterworks when she could have held them back. Not that I blame her, I mean, it worked in New Hampshire so it could work again.