Never underestimate the power of a good cry

Note to Hillary: As the song goes, “big girls don’t cry.” Apparently, she didn’t get the memo. The voters in New Hampshire didn’t, either. There is nothing that a dyed-in-the-wool, bleeding heart liberal likes more than a good cry. It just tugs at the old heart strings, you know? New Hampshire is full of those kinds of folks. Hence, Hillary’s primary victory last night.
Not to take anything away from “the smartest woman in the world”—because I actually forecast her victory up there in the Granite State, despite democratic presidential rival Barack Obama’s recent momentum from Iowa—but Hillary’s labile moment the other day couldn’t have been timed any better. Fresh in the voters’ minds Tuesday was the New York senator’s apparent sincerity of words during her recent tear session. It would not surprise me at all if Hillary received a few hundred—or even thousand—sympathy votes in response to her well-timed cry.
Media pundits have debated since then as to whether or not Hillary’s tears were genuine or staged. The truth lies somewhere in between. I believe Mrs. Clinton’s tears were real; after all, she is not as good an actor as her husband is. But I also think “the cry” was a calculated risk that Hillary was willing to take. She understood the mindset of New Hampshire voters as similar to those she won over twice in New York. Whip up a few tears and the bleeding hearts will gush with love for you.
But I digress: As timely and calculated as it was, there was something real and genuine about the cry, too. Dismayed by her recent third-place finish in Iowa and all of the attention shifting to Obama, I opine Hillary’s tears were those of frustration, rather than concern for the country. I think Hillary is concerned—about her campaign to occupy the highest seat of power in the world. After Iowa, it became painfully clear that the democratic presidential nomination was not hers exclusively. She learned, perhaps humbly, that maybe she is not a candidate of destiny, but rather a candidate of fate like the rest of the field. Welcome to reality.
Frankly, a little humble pie never hurt anyone. In Hillary’s case, a steady diet of it may actually help her to secure the party nomination and perhaps the White House.
The same goes for Obama, who may have taken his Iowa victory and subsequent momentum for granted. He is riding a wave of popularity right now that seems to transcend primary voting. Maybe all of this positive attention has gone to his head a little bit. New Hampshire ought to serve as a reality check for the “O Factor” that popularity alone will not get him elected president. There is a process to it, and one must master the process to win. Fortunately for “Obamania,” New Hampshire happened early in the presidential primary season. There are still 47 more states to go (less Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire) and a half-year until the Democratic National Convention.
What the democrats have now is a bonafide race for the White House. The candidate with the most grit will win in the end. Questions in my mind are thus: Does Hillary have the emotional armor to weather the coming storms of the primary season? Or, will she break down again after another loss? If the latter happens, then it’s over. Traditional bleeding hearts aside, the moderate and more conservative democrats do not want a fragile presidential candidate; neither do the undecided swing voters. They want someone with the grit to stand in, take the punches and still make the tough decisions. If Hillary cries again, it will be a clear signal to the country and the world that she is not ready to handle the stresses and pressures of the office of President of the United States.
As for Obama, I only wonder whether he is a sprinter or a distance runner? The former wins primaries, while the latter wins races.