The flip side of Edwards toughness and passion is that sometimes he comes off like sort of a dick. A really stupid comment, which will only gain Hillary sympathy.

If that's what JRE was implying, then he needs to shut up with that stuff, because Hillary tearing up possibly or not has zero to do with her policies or capability to govern.

But then, only Hillary can save us all from gettin' blowed up:

Clinton heightens terrorism rhetoric
by Marcella Bombardieri, political reporter
January 7, 2008 02:11 PM
Boston.com

DOVER, N.H. – Facing the prospect of defeat in tomorrow’s primary, Hillary Clinton just made her strongest suggestion yet that the next president may face a terrorist attack – and that she would be the best person to handle it.

She pointed out that the day after Gordon Brown took office as the British prime minister, there was a failed attempt at a double bombing in London and Glasgow.

“I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister,” she said. “They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.”

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html

H/T Yglesias.

As you said, Ezra:

Anyone who doesn't get worn out and a bit emotional after the grueling process these candidates are undergoing is inhuman.

In the same story, you linked to, Edwards quickly walked back his original line:

Later, at another campaign stop, Edwards appeared to adopt his wife's more sympathetic tone.

"These campaigns are very grueling," he said, "they're tough and difficult affairs, running for president is a tough process."

The grueling process make Edwards worn out and a bit emotional for a moment. Don't be classless about that, Ezra.

When I first saw this, I felt bad for Hillary. Then I read the transcript and saw that through her tears she was still able to deliver some of her stump lines like "I'll be ready to lead on day one."

Yuk.

And although I think it was stupid for JE to say this himself, I agree with the thought that if you think the campaign trail is tough, you probably should not be going from there to the Oval Office.

If a guy broke down like that, he'd be immediately disqualified. I'm really asking, because I'm not sure, should it be different for a woman?

Well, she did steal Edwards' line about it being personal. That's right out of his stump speech!

When I first saw this, I felt bad for Hillary. Then I read the transcript and saw that through her tears she was still able to deliver some of her stump lines like "I'll be ready to lead on day one." Yuk.

Actually, I find that pretty impressive.

As for Edwards's comment: cheap shot, sure - but to some extent, a candidate has to be willing to take cheap shots, to be a dick once in a while.

But be smart about it, dude - or end up like Rick Lazio.

If a guy broke down like that, he'd be immediately disqualified. I'm really asking, because I'm not sure, should it be different for a woman?

Sure he would be disqualified....and he should. If a candidate doesn't hold up emotionally on the campaign trail, how in the world will they hold up as leader of the free world?

On the other hand, knowing Hillary, I think maybe it's a new tactic tried that didn't poll well.

C'mon. This woman has been in the public eye for decades. When else has she broken down publicly? Is it a coincidence that the most calculating woman in politics breaks down and suddenly seems more likeable and sympathetic at a critical moment when one of her biggest problems is that she doesn't seem likeable???

And Edwards didn't say crying was "feminine," Ezra... but you did. Boo.

Edwards is a prick.

"Edwards is a prick."

No. You're just a Clinton supporter, JoeCHI.

Time for the Clintons to go.

In a nationally-televised debate, Hillary Clinton essentially blamed him for the death of Nataline Sarkazian, and you think a little jibe about toughness is classless?

Ezra,

It sounds like you are trying to have both ways, I read it as empathy

After I'm watching the Clinton soundbite a few times, here's what I'll say:

- It's intentional and pre-planned.

- It's very high risk. It has enormous potential downside, but it also has enormous potential upside.

- It tries to appropriate Edwards' "It's personal to me" bit that he kept hammering her at the debate, which is smart.

- It's a good message for Clinton, and it's definitely going to get played over and over again.

- But the downside risk should be obvious. The downside is not so much a matter of showing her to be over-emotional, as of making concrete the 'Clinton falling apart' / 'End of the Clinton era' idea.

Petey--you are about as fawning Edwards as Hugh Hewitt is on Romney.

"In a nationally-televised debate, Hillary Clinton essentially blamed him for the death of Nataline Sarkazian, and you think a little jibe about toughness is classless?"

I thought about posting those thoughts in almost those exact words, drfranklives.

Wrong link, Ezra. This is the right video.

I am really sorry, but my first reaction to her little scene was embarrassment that a woman in a position to be the first woman president actually resorted to crying on national television. If that is the future of feminism, then I guess I would have to cry myself. And no matter how harsh some may find Edwards comments, he is absolutely right. I don't care if you cry, I myself would be a disaster with a schedule like hers, but I would be damned if I let anyone see me doing it.

Sorry:

This is the link

"Petey--you are about as fawning Edwards as Hugh Hewitt is on Romney."

I've got a better candidate with a better message than Hewitt does. I should be more fawning.

Petey,

The other guys lines is part of the biz...after all she stole Edwards health plan and got nothing, but praise from Ezra.

Why are reporters even asking Obama and Edwards what they think about this?

I can't be the only one who thinks this is absurd.

I am amused that this criticism of Edwards comes on the heels of you calling him "The Oprah Candidate." Perhaps Edwards should include Clinton's story in his stump speech. Think about it.

Who is being sexist here? Don't you think Edwards would have said the same thing if Bill Richardson had teared up when asked how he managed toget his hair ready in the morning (that IS the question that was asked).

Once again, Clinton gets treated like the rest of the candidates, and her supporters complain about it.

Is there any point in that video where she actually cries? It just sounds like her voice gets a little creaky. No tears or anything.

Also, I don't think it's true that crying would be fatal for a male candidate. I seem to remember it happening from time to time. Didn't Mitt Romney get choked up in public recently? And if I'm not mistaken, Bush has as well?

The Edwards reaction seems to have been overblown in the ABC story. He probably shouldn't have gone beyond no comment, but Clinton keeps comparing herself to the "Iron Lady" so she seems to be trying to have it both ways as well.

Ezra's "feminine crying" line on the other hand is pretty shockingly clueless considering the usually well considered source.

Should have said:

Stealing the other guys lines is part of the biz...after all, she stole Edwards health plan and got nothing but praise from Ezra.

She would really be making a fool of a lot of people if her tears were fake...but with Hill, she must have learned to emote from Bill.

"The other guys lines is part of the biz"

No argument from me about that. As stated above, I thought that part of it was smart.

It's still a very high-risk maneuver, however.

"after all she stole Edwards health plan and got nothing, but praise from Ezra."

I thought that was her single smartest moment of the campaign. If she'd done something more like Obama's plan, Edwards would've been able to consolidate union support.

Of course, she has no intention of pushing Edwards healthcare plan if she becomes President, and we would expect Ezra to be able to suss that out...

Jason C,

Muskie did it and that was all she wrote.

Note:He was defending his wife

I think it was a dumb thing to say.

But just like we should cut Hillary some slack for showing a brief moment of emotion under the stress of the campaign trail, we should cut Edwards some slack for a momentary miscue under the same circumstances.

Didn't Nixon get choked up in something stupid like the "Checkers" speech?

Don't we have anything more important to argue about?

No, you see, Bill emoted (however fake it was) because he felt other peoples' pain. Hillary is actually getting choked up about how hard she has it. She has lived a life of privilege from birth. It is truly absurd.

Well now that the healthcare industry has switched to Obama for promising to stop reform Hill & Bill might surprise those creeps.

"Of course, she has no intention of pushing Edwards healthcare plan if she becomes President, and we would expect Ezra to be able to suss that out.." - Petey

So? Our guy does bad things too sometimes. Any of us could (and have) point to a number of clueless things that Clinton or Obama have said. That's how it works. I seriously doubt that Edwards is proud of himself, but sometimes you do what you have to do. That's what being a fighter is about.

So much for Edwards being the Oprah candidate.

Much ado about nothing.

What a nothing clip after the build up. Now we have a nothing controversy about the nothing clip.

this is stupid.

Dunno Glenn,

Hillary fakes tears and Edwards gives her some tough love...didn't Oprah pimp "Dr. Phil" for while?

.

The whole story is a pathetic joke...Sounds like Oprah to me. Does the US press suck or what?

okay- let me try this again. I think what Edwards said was in poor taste. i suport him, but this wasn't a situation in which one question the strength of a leader for showing emotions. whether people believe this is real or not (let me remind y ou that many of you attacking clinton on this have zero proof it was fake- just your bent against her). it was telling that she decided to show emotions. this has been my problem with her. that she lacked passion. not ambition- passion. there is nothing wrong with showing emotions. thats whata wrong with progressive politics.

C'mon akaison,

This is the haircut story redux...another cheap shot with no proof on anybody's part.

Theres no story with multiple reporters interpretations. To now help it along here is pathetic.

this is really, really stupid, Ezra.

If me and my cancer-riddled wife were pushing full boar, non-stop for the last 36 hours straight, with far less resources and against far greater odds, and In much better spirits than the well monied, establishment candidate - I might not feel a whole lot ton sympathy for her either.

That being said, they all want the job they're running for.

what what said.

No one is fucking saying change your vote. I am certainly not. But be human, or certainly don't expect us to be human toward you. She had a legitimate moment. And, yeah, it's like the hair story. But not in the way you mean- it's like that moment in the cynacism. There are times when you respect other people's feelings without the retarded "I got it worse or questioning leadership ability." To me it's a non story,b ut its also not one for which Clinton should be attacked. Attack her for policy, for leadership, but not for being human. that's my only point.

IF many of us don't trust Clinton, that's her fault. You reap what you sow, When you spread lies and fear, when your entire career is based on dividing Democrats into 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' categories, don't be shocked when you're met with fear and resentment,

amen, what and peadub. this is the dumbest thing you've written in a while, ezra.

Let me add. There is a strong chance she will win the nomination despite her set backs. I would rather she believe she won this for being human (the thing you are scolfing at) even if it's fake. Why? Because like with Edwards pushing Obama and Clinton on policy, the more these leaders question their style, the better off we are as an electorate with a more well rounded leader. Clinton as teflon automaton isn't what I want in the WH. This person comes closer to it that we saw in the video- even if its fake.

"Let me add. There is a strong chance she will win the nomination despite her set backs"

As long as Edwards and Obama remain aligned, she's not going to be the nominee.

You don't know that. A month, which is what we have until Super Tuesday, can be an eternity in politics. I would never have thought Obama had a shot in IA or that the turnout would be that high either, but it was. Stop acting like we know for certain what will happen. I am not saying change support. hell, not even saying change strategy- just realize how to tweak it when it produces an overall better result. Clinton as human is a better overall thing for us all. Obama being forced to be more specific and tougher with how he will get things done is better for us all. Edwards realizing he needs the press is a better than for us all. I am too old to view things in simple terms- sorry.

Muskie's the standard example, but he (supposedly) had a full-on weeping session - at least, tears running down his face. I understand he said they weren't tears, but melting snow or something.

It seems you have to hit a sweet spot: get choked up just enough to prove you're human, but walk it back quickly enough to prove you are in control of your emotions.

Actual tears would probably be taking it too far.

I saw a genuine moment of frustration and concern by Hillary, not a pre-planned tactic. It seemed very human and totally acceptable. I haven't been in her camp, but I do respect her lifetime of civic service - and I don't contest that she's fully up to the job of President.

I do understand, however, that some liberals and progressives have some real basis for scepticism about her - but not in this case.

My immediate reaction was the cliched 'you go girl'.

The irony here is that much of the cynacism requires one to believe Clinton is better at the theatre of politics than she's previously displayed. Who knew.

I don't know. She's been campaigning on this idea that she's super tough and can stand up to the worst Republicans can sling at her... and she gets choked up less than a week after the primary voting starts? Because its hard to get up in the morning?

I'm sure she and the others are all under some intense emotional strain, but its only going to get worse. Much worse.

If Edwards or Obama choked up like that (or anyone on the Republican side as well), they would be toast. Finished.

Damn it: as an Edwards supporter, I'm pissed. What the hell is he doing? I give props to Obama; smart move: stay out of it.

Besides, Clinton didn't break down, she just kind of stumbled a bit when someone asked her, "How do you do it?"

I think it was a good moment for Clinton -- and I'm not particularly a Clinton supporter. Watching it, I felt genuine empathy, a reaction she rarely provokes. I don't really think it will change anything--it's pretty much just the navel-gaze of the day--though I do hope Edwards makes it clear that he didn't intend his comment as a criticism of her getting choked up (which I suspet is the case).

If I was Edwards and heard what Hillary said, I would have been rip roaring mad. The emotion she displayed today, in isolation, may have been sincere and understandable. However, in the context of what she said about Edwards and Obama Saturday night - angrily chiding them for doing what she in fact did today, and in fact stealing their words almost verbatum, I have trouble believing the sincerity. She did the same thing during the debate itself when she tried to play the gender card to her advantage by coyly talking about her hurt feelings. She wants it both ways. She is very cunning. I can't blame Edwards for not having a lot of sympathy given the circumstances.

Most of youse guys are loonie toons here. You act like he was tapping at his laptop on the bus watching the video clip and then came out with this response ... like, in other words, he was a commenter on a blog thread responding to the clip.

How can the blogosphere act as a check on the corporate media when it falls for things like this hook, line and sinker?

Anybody who actually watched that clip and says she "broke down" has their heads up their arse. Her voice wavered for about 3 seconds. And it wasn't when she was talking about how tough it was - it was when she was talking about the crisis the country is in - how we cannot afford to fall back.
Get over it people. It was a humanizing moment.
And Edwards lost my support today.

Did anyone else wonder if Edwards' response was influenced by the name of the town he was campaigning in (Laconia)?

And Edwards lost my support today.

No offense, but you're either lying and never supported Edwards in the first place, or you're extraordinarily petty.

Honestly, I thought of it as a really positive moment. I could support a candidate that isn't afraid to be human, and to show emotion.

And you know what, if that's what voting for a woman means, then I'm really happy with that-- I see no reason preference machismo in my elected officials. Down that road lie aircraft-carrier flight-suit cod-pieces.

Still not voting for her, on dynastic grounds.

Edwards said that because he is angry. He hates Clinton, Obama puppies and apple pie. When he comes in third in NH he may turn green and start referring to himself in the third person. Something like 'Edwards hate the corporations, want to smash insurance companies.'
Angry and/or green men should not be president. Edwards goes through to many suits to be true populist.