« Virtual Salami | Main | More on Hillary Clinton's Tears» Don Boudreaux
January 08, 2008
Sincere Tears
Don Boudreaux
I suggested earlier that serious political candidates are never sincere. I take that back. Sometimes -- alas, not often, but sometimes -- sincerity happens on the campaign trail. I sincerely believe that the tears Hillary Clinton shed yesterday in New Hampshire were shed sincerely. But contrary to much of the spin put on that episode, I don't believe that those tears expose any admirable soft spots in Hillary Clinton.
As I say, I suspect that her tears were genuine. After all, she cried not because of some real or imagined affront to herself, to her family, or to a favored political group; nor did she cry over any of her failures. Instead, Sen. Clinton cried over her own lust for power. Her emotion was sparked by her self-admiration. She got all choked up when she suggested how indispensable she is to America and when she reflected upon - perhaps a better phrase is "wallowed in" - her own magnanimity at being willing to endure the awful hardship of being President of the United States.
Relatedly, as my friend and Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady points out to me in a personal e-mail, Sen. Clinton "never cried over the betrayal in her marriage but what made her cry was the possibility that she would lose power."
Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e54fc5a6878833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sincere Tears:
Comments
I agree they weren't crocodile tears, but narcissist tears. She thinks she's entitled to the Presidency, and those who oppose her are being mean.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | Jan 8, 2008 4:34:52 PM
It has been interesting to see the wheels begin to fall off the Clinton juggernaut. I am always wary that they will find a way to right the ship but I suspect they will not. The even better video was the other Clinton, in an ill fitting coat, reacting angrily to a question about Obama (on the ABC news site). This would be the stuff of Shakespeare or at least a good opera.
Posted by: drtaxsacto | Jan 8, 2008 4:47:55 PM
Spot on. Her lust for power is her prime motivation in life.
Posted by: Shaun Connell | Jan 8, 2008 5:03:01 PM
So true. And deplorable, but I'm not surprised.
Posted by: Will | Jan 8, 2008 5:03:37 PM
The question she was asked "how do you stay so upbeat?" and she answered along the lines "it's hard, but I do it because I don't want to see our country fall behind."
There was *NOTHING* said about how she was doing in the polls (she's still on top) or the primaries (there's only been one). So how do you pretend to KNOW that she was crying over "her loss of power"?? HOW!!!??? TELL ME!!
Ug. It frustrates me to no end to see people act like they know this woman when thier dim impressions are based on Matt Drudge articles. This is a very very sorry post.
Posted by: Student | Jan 8, 2008 5:35:46 PM
Don: "Sen. Clinton cried over her own lust for power. Her emotion was sparked by her self-admiration."
Student, what you don't realize -- because you are just a student -- is that Don can see into the hearts of politicians. He doesn't need "empirical evidence" (a phrase used all the time by Dear Russ). I'm not sure if Hillary has a soul, but Don does and thinks he can see into it and read her motives. One day, young student, you'll understand the mysterious powers of the Force (sorry) the Ph D. Your eyes can deceive you, Student. Don't trust them. Stretch out with your feelings.
Posted by: Mark | Jan 8, 2008 5:45:46 PM
Just to make it clear. I like to take Clinton's reaction at face value. She started getting choked up when she said she didn't want to see this country "fall behind". That leads me to think she is concerned for her country and fellow citizens.
She did not get choked up when she said campaigning is hard to do and she never said anything about how awesome or admirable she was. In fact, she didn't even say one dang word about how she would make a better presidential candidate or how she would be "best" to lead the country. NOT ONE WORD!!!
Since Don's post has nothing to do with the words that were spoken during the event, I can only guess his post is based on his mind-reading abilities. Good Job, Don! I hope I get the same superpowers when my PhD is awarded!
Posted by: Student | Jan 8, 2008 5:46:33 PM
Student,
My understanding is that at least 75% of communication is non-verbal, and that human beings are actually very adept at picking up non-verbal cues. And I got roughly the same message as Don did. Just sayin'...
Posted by: Randy | Jan 8, 2008 6:03:17 PM
Student,
I would take another look at the video. She did go on to say why she does this, she said she is ready on day one, the others are not, she said she is right and others are wrong. She was absolutely crying because she thinks she is the best politician but it is so hard to convince other people of that fact. She lusts for power, as they all do, she wants it because she is convinced that if she has the power she can create a new eden. It is that delusion, that secret fantasy that they all harbor, that makes them so dangerous. It is the same delusion shared by Lincoln, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Ho Chi Mihn, that their way is the one true way, and if they have the power, they can drag you kicking and screaming into the bright new future, and you will thank them when you get there. If some people have to die to get them down the road, so be it, they believe it will be worth it in the end.
Posted by: scott clark | Jan 8, 2008 6:10:18 PM
The most fascinating (and ironic) thing about all this is no one is really sure if they were sincere tears or not – Hillary has become a caricature of political machination that one of the first reactions from everyone I heard (overactive type-A personalities, like Hillary) was “Totally fake. This is [another] political ploy.” Some folks believed her, but most think it’s an act.
The sad thing is, because Hilary is so devoid of any sincerity, it’s nearly impossible to tell when she’s being authentic. And if they are “real” tears, the likely cause is largely her perceived unfair treatment by the press, which she herself has been the very beneficiary of in elections past. Poor Hillary.
I suspect were you to sit her down with a decent psychologist for a workup, you’d find there really is very little to her true inner character.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 8, 2008 6:23:24 PM
The vibe I got was the same as Don's, although I have no doubt Hillary believes she is the best person for the job (and thus the best person to be in power).
Posted by: G | Jan 8, 2008 6:26:10 PM
Scott,
Actually, she does not say that. She says "some of us are right and some of us are wrong", but she does not make the case that she herself is right. And even that comment was made AFTER she choked up at the line "i just don't want to see us fall behind."
Now, obviously she thinks she is the best person for the job (if she didn't she wouldn't be running), but that is not the question at hand. The question is why she cried in public. Don said she cried over her "lust for power" and her own "self-admiration". I would say that's a slim argument since she never actually talked about the power of the presidency or why she herself was admirable. But,maybe you are both mind-readers.
I guess I should quit posting about it. None of the arguments in this thread are based on what was actually said. They are all based on pre-concieved notions of what drives Hillary Clinton (as if any of us know). It is beyond my abilities to convince people to drop these notions and I should accept that.
Posted by: Student | Jan 8, 2008 6:37:19 PM
Student, you need to remember this: even libertarians can give in to the temptation to mind-read and morph into thought police. I love this list"Lincoln, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Ho Chi Mihn", it made me chuckle. Oh, the guilt of us all! We're just like Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il-Sung, Ho Chi Mihn! Please rain fire down on us and save us! Give us peaceful, tranquil anarchy, because all politicians are 100% delusional, power-lusting megalomaniacs who just want to slaughter people!
Posted by: Mark | Jan 8, 2008 6:49:50 PM
Excuse me, student, this is why you remain a (below average) padawan learner:
"They are all based on pre-concieved [sic.] notions of what drives Hillary Clinton (as if any of us know)."
If you do not know what drives Hillary (Hint: it ain't altruism), you should not be opining on this issue….
Signed,
The whole point of Don's post
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 8, 2008 6:57:52 PM
Hillary put Billy Dale of the White House Travel Office through hell with a trumped up false criminal charge so she could put her own people in that office. Billy Dale lost his life savings defending himself from those charges which a jury took 90 minutes to acquit him of. Thankfully, Congress later voted to award him enough money to restore his savings. Hillary was able to do that to him without the slightest regret or emotion. She didn't care one bit about what she had done to an innocent man.
Posted by: Flash Gordon | Jan 8, 2008 7:05:34 PM
To daily endure so many direct and internationally-publicized affronts to one's very being, I certainly hope that each of these candidates thinks he or she is indispensable! What should their campaign slogan be, "I ain't much baby, but I'm all we've got?"
At stake for the candidates is a record of one's achievements and/or failures recorded in world history! Polls or no polls, I would have a tough time staying in the race if I had to see our national benchmark for deceit, incompetence and arrogance being recorded daily in world history.
I liked Hillary both when she said she was no Tammy Wynette, and when she showed us that maybe she was a little like Tammy Wynette (in her song of course)...but I really like her for the intelligence, guts, and now the humanity she's shown in going through a very public baptism by fire. She has what it takes to do her gender, and the rest of us, proud!
Rush-and-his-ilke-Limbaugh, who has brought so much undeserved resentment upon her, might even be surprised!
Posted by: Agador Spartacus | Jan 8, 2008 7:09:47 PM
What kind of crap is that?
Ah, yes, the slings-and-arrows of outrageous fortune……
Please.
Hillary is one of the best political operators of our time (with the complicit media), and now she’s some fragile waif?
This is working better than she (or I) thought….
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 8, 2008 7:20:47 PM
My brothers happen to be mega-liberals, and I think that gives me some insight into this.
I think she was genuinely upset because I think that she thinks she's smarter than everyone else and could do a better job than anyone else. I see this in my brothers. Their (somewhat) unacknowledged ideal is the Philosopher King; IOW a benevolent dictatorship. I would imagine the same thing, the same hubris, drives other dictators and would-be dictators like Hugo Chavez.
They honestly believe they could run the world.
Of course, they aren't alone in this. Last night Michael Savage was making basically the same point.
The lesson is that Liberty faces threats from both the right and the left.
Posted by: Chris O'Leary | Jan 8, 2008 7:26:10 PM
From Drudge:
OBAMA 36; CLINTON 38; EDWARDS 17
More interesting:
MCCAIN 38; ROMNEY 28; HUCKABEE 12; PAUL 8; GIULIANI 9; THOMPSON 1
I think these are actual raw vote totals from the total curmudgeon population of New Hampshire, not percentages.
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Jan 8, 2008 7:50:58 PM
Right on! Its the arrogance that gets to me and my Dem friends totally agree. But then its the arrogance of the elitists that takes the cake. She said she has "so many opportunities for the United States". WTF does that mean if not that she feels she has all the solutions and she is sad because she might not be able to implement them. What a soaring ego, even beyond the normal "big head" that presidential candidates get-she really thinks she is the only one and entitled to rule the world
Posted by: tiger | Jan 8, 2008 7:57:56 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
