The gender and victim card, that I spoke about earlier today?
She’s done it.
She got emotional and teary during an appearance in NH today. Maybe I’m cynical as hell, but it seems totally contrived:
The Meme-Mandated, Semi-Regularly-Updated, Occasionally Coherent Thoughts of G.M. Skarka
Not that I like Clinton at all–because I definitely do NOT–but I didn’t see any indication of this in her speech. She didn’t once mention gender or claim she was a victim. Her becoming teary–which I agree was contrived–was to indicate passion and sincerity, not weakness and victimization.
I agree. I don’t see what makes this a gender or victim card.
As a display of emotion, it doesn’t seem any more or less contrived than an emphatic fist on the podium and a raised voice.
I dunno — I took it as trying to indicate “softness.”
If anything, crying to show victimization would pretty much torpedo her campaign faster than a Howard Dean whoop.
Doesn’t anybody remember Pat Schroeder?
WASHINGTON TALK: PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS; Are Female Tears Saltier Than Male Tears?
By BERNARD WEINRAUB, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
LEAD: She cried.
September 30, 1987
Wow — I *had* forgotten. Although now that I’ve followed the link, I clearly remember Nora Dunn’s SNL skewering of her.
Softness, perhaps, but I’d think that was just to counter the fact that she’s seen as a hard-ass otherwise. Plenty of male political figures have tried to show their softer side too, and for the same reasons.