Anyone see this? Only a woman could pull this off. I for one would never vote for a president that cried for votes.
A lot of people think this is fake, but some also say it is real. Some say it is the real Hilary, but her campaign managers kept her from showing this side. Now that shes down I guess its like whatever. I don't think that her crying doesn't make her fit for president. Note that I am not a Hilary supporter, but I don't believe in bashing on people if there isn't due reason.
I believe she was sincere. We all have emotions. I don't particularly care for her, but it's poor taste to slap someone in the face when they are down on their luck. I like to think Americans are better than that.
It's sickening. This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVlwH7-05Fk is about as real as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESfyejvxWrw
I think to show a human side of her is a plus point for her. To me she seems to be the Iron Lady some sort of Margaret Thatcher. Super intelligent and aloof and successful. Some emotional display helps to identify her with her voters that she is still one of them. I remember one of the Australian PM also did cried, forgotten his name, his popularity surge after that. Though when he did that the second time, it didn't help much So I think it is a good thing a plus point for her, for me at least I feel she is more human now. It may help the polls I think.
My personal read is that it isn't genuine, any more than a small sentiment can be nursed to full fruition, if it is useful for some purpose. She immediately returned to her mantra that she is trying to hammer home - "ready on Day 1," and I do not see much in what I viewed that says "deeply held." I might be way off, but I have always considered Clinton - Mr. and Mrs. - as little more than political animals of the most extreme incarnation. All the lines - "tired...like I am...", etc., coming off the heels of a debate in which her handlers cringed with the question, "not likeable enough...." I just didn't buy it. And I think that after whatever first flush settles of "wow, really human moment," it will be read as gross, manipulative insincerity in the extreme. My prediction is this will not do a thing for her, at best, and may actually hurt her - not for a "sign of weakness," but for the reasons I've said.
They were actually talking about how many people view the family like that on CNN. I think they do have a more genuine side to them, they are human after all. Crying on camera could be seen as an attempt to help her cause, but I think the tears certainly may be real.
Sure, they were real. But I just felt a disconnect between them, and any lingering revelation of an inner self. I had the very nearly immediate sense that any genuine sentiment flashed across and from her, evanescent as snow, as she leapt into her line - "Ready on Day 1." I have nothing to stand on but my own peculiar instincts in reading people. I may be flatly wrong. I am basically saying the question was asked, she probably is tired, bone tired - and she felt the pulse of the room quiet. She probably hasn't heard true silence in quite a long time, I am guessing long before this campaign. I am guessing it is rare someone has asked her how she is feeling about anything, and for a moment it hit her, and the warbling feeling began to well deep in her gut. But I then saw an immediate war flash across her mind and face, over whether she should or shouldn't be doing this, and further, whether this might be actually useful. I saw what an actor will often do - and I was one, for a long, long time - when lost either in reverie, a stale place that brooks no invite, and so indulging a feeling, and marvelling it was conjured so in the first place, in a place and time so filled with artifice as the stage (or the campaign stump); or in "going up" on a line, searching for a way back. I saw her search for that way out, and she found it, in her dig regarding "experience" at Obama. The complexity of these sensations, at least as I perceived them, bely the real experience of a simple, human truth at the bottom of it all. I think she has been in pursuit of the political prize for so long, she is no longer capable of simply being - at least before a packed room of potential votes. None of them, none of the candidates are, actually, capable of simply being. To be truthful, since I'm waxing in this way, I think women in our society searching for power have been handed the most difficult task that could be asked of a human being. The country doesn't appreciate women - I honestly believe that - and so it relegates them to a janus: They are either weaklings, incapable of power, or harridans, who shouldn't hold it; when they are so much more. Purely an opinion.
The whole idea of the first lady coming back as President reminds me of the Banana Republics. I think it happened a few times in Argentina. "Don't cry for me Argentina ..."
I feel that there is some different, btw your "Dont cry for me Argentina" really fits in the situation. The Clintons, I feel, Hillary is the much smarter one. While the first ladies of those banana republics depends and often invoke the names of their hubby to become president, Hillary by herself and her credentials and experience is far capable of going it alone for president. I sometimes feel that Bill Clinton with his love for cigars is more of a liability rather than help for Hillary. She did not need to rely on sympathy votes (Bill Clinton is alive and well , not assassinated) though she may need the experience of Bill in running the election machinery, I think that's about all.
I think the Clintons are two of the most brilliant people to have ever lived in the White House. I don't think brilliance is enough.