Hillary's Tears: Weak or Humanizing-- The People Speak

Catching up on some political news, one of the bigger stories is Hillary’s tearing up again, this time at a meeting at Yale Law School. While the article itself was short and straightforward, I found the comments for the article extremely intriguing. The wide spectrum of comments including some of the following notable arguments:

Negative

-We shouldn’t have a President that is crying all of the time because we look weak in foreign policy and America doesn’t need “emotional baggage”

-The crying is not genuine and merely to garner more votes

-Crying is an attempt to unfairly manipulate her gender to garner votes.

-Crying in New Hampshire worked---time to try again

Positive:

-People should be allowed to express emotions—it as an important form of empathy

-She looks less like a robot and more like a human

-Crying when visiting your alma matta is not out of line

-Bush cries too

One of the things I found most interesting is that the majority of the comments were negative. The majority these comments are generally came from males. Personal views aside, it seems as if this could play an important role in Hillary winning votes for becoming less robotic or losing votes by looking like a “weak” or “soft” President given the number of polarizing responses to this article.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/clinton_crys_in_connecticut.html