In a January 17 Washington Times article -- headlined "Strong leader or likable advocate?" -- Jennifer Harper wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-IL) acted with “masculine flair” when she said: “Neither race nor gender should be a part of this campaign,” during the January 15 Democratic presidential debate. Harper wrote:

Mrs. Clinton then displayed some chameleonlike dynamics.

“Neither race nor gender should be a part of this campaign,” she said during Tuesday's Democratic debate, firmly setting ground rules with masculine flair.

As Media Matters for America documented, a January 7 New York Post column similarly asserted that Clinton “has long been accused of androgyny -- trying to sound like a man, flexing her rhetorical muscle.”

Harper also described Clinton as a “sob sister” and asserted that "[b]y the time New Hampshire held its primaries last week, Mrs. Clinton saw fit to cry in public." At a recent campaign event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Clinton's voice broke as she talked about why she is seeking the presidency.

The January 17 Washington Times article in its entirety:

She weeps delicately, then debates with gusto. She guffaws with the fellows and giggles with the gals -- strident one moment, soft-spoken the next.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be in touch with both her masculine and feminine sides on the campaign trail. The New York Democrat is seeking a tenable balance that could play in Peoria, Ill., and beyond.

Good luck.

“In times of peril, people prefer a leader with masculine traits more often found in men,” said Crystal L. Hoyt, a social psychologist at the University of Richmond. “These traits include assertiveness, aggressiveness and dominance versus caring concern and care for others.”

Mrs. Clinton is walking a “treacherous” tightrope.

“This double bind results from the need for women to demonstrate masculine, leaderlike characteristics to be perceived as effective, but they can't be too masculine or people won't like them,” Ms. Hoyt said.

They can't get too girly, either.

“Women leaders also need to show a certain level of femininity to be liked, but if they show too much, they will be perceived as an ineffective leader,” she added.

Mrs. Clinton herself has weaved through roles as feminist, sob sister and lawmaker -- and back again.

“In so many ways, this all-women's college prepared me compete in the all-boys' club of presidential politics,” she told a Wellesley College audience in November.

By the time New Hampshire held its primaries last week, Mrs. Clinton saw fit to cry in public, prompting partisan bloggers to proclaim “four more tears” as her new campaign slogan.

“Are we serious people, if someone can cry and the next day people go, 'Well, she finally cried, she's got my vote?” asked HBO comic Bill Maher.

Mrs. Clinton then displayed some chameleonlike dynamics.

“Neither race nor gender should be a part of this campaign,” she said during Tuesday's Democratic debate, firmly setting ground rules with masculine flair.

Mrs. Clinton quickly went on to make peacemaking gestures to her opponents Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

“Clinton is asked to achieve the impossible: perfection. But the way to solve that problem is fairly simple: Get more women onto that stage. When we have larger numbers of women running for office, we'll be able to get past perfection and past gender,” said Marie Wilson, president of the White House Project, a nonpartisan group promoting women's leadership issues.

Emotional underpinnings are part of the political process, however. The very act of voting might be driven by drama and “the effects of conscious and unconscious attitudes toward gender and race,” said Drew Westen, an Emory University psychology professor.

“Voters tend to choose their favorite candidates by emotion, and then rationalize those gut feelings,” he said.

Mr. Westen will describe the “emotional way” we cast our ballots at the American Psychoanalytic Association's annual meeting tomorrow.