Anyone else getting sick of the endless analysis of Hillary Clinton's crying jag?
Sure, the reaction to it is an interesting sociological study in gender bias and the politics of projection. And there's a side story about how Hillary is perceived as so controlled that anything spontaneous -- including tears -- is a notable break in the facade.
But c'mon: it's embarassing that grown men and women, supposedly deeply knowledgeable political observers, can aver with a straight face that Hillary tearing up is the reason she won in New Hampshire.
Besides seriously dissing the intelligence and judgment of the average New Hampshire voter, let's try to follow the logic.
Polls showed Obama with a pretty good lead. The undecideds generally weren't big enough to be the swing factor.
So we're supposed to believe that there were a large number of voters who intended to vote for Obama (for instance) but then saw footage of Hillary crying and thought, "Wait a minute! That's the one for me."
Does that make sense to anyone?
As I noted before, the results in New Hampshire were surprising mostly because they contradicted the pre-election polls. But if you hadn't been paying attention to the polling and someone came up to you and said Clinton and McCain had won in New Hampshire, you'd say "Well, duh." Because in their respective primaries they're the closest match to that particular electorate.
There certainly is a story into why the polling was wrong. My pet theory: A bunch of Biden, Richardson and (particularly) Edwards supporters threw their vote to either Clinton or Obama at the last minute, knowing that their preferred candidate had little chance and wanting to influence the frontrunners. Or maybe the polls were just, you know, wrong. It happens.
And I certainly understand why embarassed pundits had to scrap around for something to blame for their poor prognostication.
But putting it down to Hillary's tears is contemptuous of both Hillary and the voters.
Hillary, politics, midtopia