Monday, January 7, 2008

Primary 2008~

So Hillary is human. Of course she is, poor woman.

She remained hard when Bill betrayed her in the public eye. She was angry, we knew; we watched her shake off his hand as they prepared to board a plane, but she never shed a public tear.

Was that a bad thing? Who's to say? Would I have cried on the nightly news in similar circumstances? I have no clue. I might have, but most likely I'd have had my armor on-- like Hillary did-- for the public.

And because she fastened her armor tightly, we all said, "How cold. She's a stone. Has she no emotion?"

And then, "She needs Bill. She wants to stay in politics. She'll never dump him."

And she didn't. For whatever reason-- love or politics-- she didn't.

But today, years after Bill had his fling with Monica, and the world watched for Hillary's response, she showed a soft side.

Exhausted, she spoke in New Hampshire on the eve of the primary elections, answering question after endless question. And she wavered, sounded teary, weary, and emotional.

Hillary is human. Of course she is, poor woman.

I will not vote for her, but she melted me.

It might have been scripted- a political maneuver. Her advisors might has said, "Act softer, kinder and gentler. Be more human."

My husband said, "Remember Edmund Muskie." Muskie's presidential run went south the moment he shed tears, tears in defense of his wife.

But he was a man. Hillary is a woman. Muskie's tears were genuine. Were Hillary's almost tears real?

Isn't that what we want first and foremost in our president? A living, breathing, feeling human? One who shares our pain? One who works for us because he or she understands? One with passion? One with a heart.

Sure. And one who is strong on foreign policy, and the economy, and health care, and national defense, and . . .

There is no such a person. But each candidate wants to convince us he is. Or she is.

Other countries have, or have had, woman in high elected positions, but not the US. We think about it too much. We analyze it too much. We think it matters too much.


And race.

The 2008 elections are just gearing up, and already are wearying-- for the common man as well as the candidate.

Stay tuned.
I think it's about time we voted for senators with breasts. After all, we've been voting for boobs long enough. ~Clarie Sargent, Arizona senatorial candidate


rain said...

Canadian politics are so dull compared to yours..I think I would vote for Hillary. It's so hard to tell what's real these, politics...all of it. I watch and listen less and less.

Janice Thomson said...

It's very possible and fairly likely that Hilary's tears were planned - and it's more than likely she chose to stay with hubby to enter politics easier. But I don't see her as your next president. I don't think people feel she would be competent enough to handle such a huge country. In most cases, right or wrong, people feel more comfortable with a man as a leader...but I could be wrong. :)

Ross said...

Hello, Ruth, and Happy New Year! I don't get to see or hear much about American politics these days, but I've tried to catch up on Hillary Clinton's run for the White House. I am, I suppose, more comfortable with the idea of a woman leading the country than (perhaps) the average American might be. In Bermuda, we had two female Premiers (both black, by the way) when I lived there. And, of course, in Blighty we had Margaret Thatcher. We still don't much like the Iron Lady, she unified us somehow ... we all hated her. A friend used to fantasise that she was under his knife when he gutted a fish. But Mrs Thatcher was timely, for good or bad. We needed her. It is not enough to drift (happily?) ... sometimes you need a good thump. And when Mrs Thatcher was ousted in what would be a palace coup, not by the voters, for we can do that here, she did weep in public as she left 10 Downing Street. I suppose it is human nature to cry when you think nobody likes you. And if you don't cry, you might not be human after all. Ruth, does your classroom have a "Class President"? Are tears shed in the winning and losing? What should we be teaching the kids?

sc morgan said...

I have to tell you, Ruth, I think it was planned. It's been said that Hillary is the best-known person that no one knows. It's also said she doesn't sneeze without a script. It is how she thought she could beat the Republicans. Whatever her motive, or lack of it, it seems that she is not connecting with the average voter.

I agree with your husband about old Ed Muskie. I was talking about him last night with Alan. It creates a double standard, doesn't it? That she can cry and look human, and old Ed looked weak. Whatever it is, I think Obama is going to win NH.

Wait until the Republican machine gets hold of him! I pity the American public for the next eleven months.

Wanda said...

What a great comentary. You are such a great writer, perhaps the candidates need people like you writing for them.
I will stay tuned.

Voyager said...

I'm a cinic, I think it was planned.
Looking at the US election race from the outside, what boggles my mind is that next U.S president will likely be a woman or a half African man whose middle name is Hussein.

Ruth D~ said...

Rain~ New avitar? If you manage to stick with our election process, it will be interesting to see if you change.

Janice~ I agree, but in a matter of days she made a better showing in New Hampshire. Time will tell. I hate to think gender and race even matter, but . . . they seem to.

Ross~ Love your anecdotes and humor . . . and British history lesson. I just may write something about a class election. I cancelled one earlier this year due to bribery. :>)

Sarah~ Don't you miss American politics? :>) Maybe you actually do.

Wanda~ Thanks! How nice of you.

Voyager~ We'd make better decisions if we were blind and deaf and just got to read-- in Braille, I guess-- a script of the candidates views, I think.

Rick Bylina said...

I don't usually jump into the political forum, but I think her tears were actually the result of the onion being peeled by one of the reporters in front of her. You can just barely see him in the one picture, and he's wearing an Edwards' pin and an Obama tie. Now, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but Guiliani wasn't anywhere to be found when Hillary was answering those questions.

It does make you think, though.

Barbara said...

It's going to be an interesting year politically. Whatever the outcome, I hope the country can rebound from some really rough war-torn years under the current regime.

I want to stop before trying to determine the legitimacy of someone else's tears.

Ruth D~ said...

Barbara~ You make a good point. As for determining the legitimacy of someone's tears . . . the media will do it for us if we don't. Better to have your own opinion in place to stand against whatever the media decides we should think. Cynical? Moi?

Ruth D~ said...

Tere has left a new comment on your post "Primary 2008~":

Ruth - you just said everything that was in my head!!! And so much more
beautifully than I ever could have. I completely agree. It's all so sad.

Tere: You say things pretty nicely, yourself! Thanks.

***Darn! every now and then when moderating comments I hit "reject" instead of publish. Part of my left/right confusion? I hope not. I just multi-task and that's the result of thinking one thing while doing another.

Here's the url to Tere's blog:

Pauline said...

This is an eloquent piece. If only we could put gender and color aside. I can't imagine that happening though. Both aspects are how we judge at first glance because they are so obvious. Then we have to shift to civilized mode and rethink those judgements. Politics has become such a big business that it's a wonder we get anyone who is capable of both leading the country and remaining untainted by scandal of some sort, real or media-generated. When I think of the money squandered on campaigns and how better it could have been spent, I question the goodness of humanity itself.