Hillary Clinton's Crying Still Hot Topic Among Hot-Under-The Collar Critics

Illustration for article titled Hillary Clinton's Crying Still Hot Topic Among Hot-Under-The Collar Critics

Hillary Clinton's now infamous "cry" happened a full three days ago, and yet media pundits, particularly the female ones, are still chiming in. First up is Germaine Greer in the Guardian. The Australian rabblerouser/feminist, (seen at left), doesn't think Hillary's "tears" were genuine at all and goes on to say that "watching Hillary Clinton pretending to get teary-eyed is enough to make me give up shedding tears altogether. The currency, you might say, has become devalued." She takes a U-turn from there and goes off in a semi-coherent rant in which she basically says that no one should cry, ever. "Crying can be unpardonable self-indulgence," Greer writes. "An adult should not cry in front of children, because the sight and sound fill them with dread." [Uh, I'd say it's the other way around! -Ed.]


Then comes crazypants Camille Paglia, who hates on Hillary in a screed in Salon. Because of Hillary's upbringing alongside feckless male siblings, Paglia posits that Clinton hates all men: "Hillary's willingness to tolerate Bill's compulsive philandering is a function of her general contempt for men. She distrusts them and feels morally superior to them...Hillary's disdain for masculinity fits right into the classic feminazi package, which is why Hillary acts on Gloria Steinem like catnip."

Possibly to balance out Camille's rant, Salon also runs a far more sane and well-argued piece by Frances Kissling, who says that while Clinton intelligence is to be respected, she's bothered by Hillary's "stereotypical male" posturing. "In [Hillary's] own mind it is only a certain kind of man who is qualified to be president," Kissling writes, "and she will be that man: tough on everything from war, flag burning, kids' access to video games, illegal immigrants and Palestinians. She has missed the opportunity to talk about what it really means for women to be equal in this country."

Finally, Gail Collins in the New York Times has a different spin on why women in New Hampshire were possibly affected by Hillary's show of emotion. "This week, Hillary was a stand-in for every woman who's overdosed on multitasking," Collins says. "They grabbed at the opportunity to have kids/go back to school/start a business/become a lawyer. But there are days when they can't meet everybody's needs and the men in their lives — loved ones and otherwise — make them feel like failures or towers of self-involvement. And the deal is that they can either suck it up or look like a baby."

For Crying Out Loud! [Guardian]
Hillary Without Tears [Salon]
Why I'm Still Not For Hillary Clinton [Salon]
Hillary's Free Pass [New York Times]



Here are my answers to this ridiculous and overblown issue.

#1 She didn't even cry. She got varklempt. Big difference. Anyway, that aside...

-If the moment was genuine (I think it's about as genuine as you'll see from a candidate at this point) she's a human, deal with it.

-If it was feigned, she's a politician, deal with it.