Vote for Tears or Vote for Hope?

So Hillary wins in New Hampshire because, according to an AP report, women voters were moved by her emotionalism at a press conference, her eyes brimming with tears because of the stress of running for president.

- - - - - - - long pause - - - - - - -

Excuse me?

I'm sorry, but that's a stupid reason to vote for someone. I don't think women are that stupid.
I hope not.

Used to be women were soundly criticized for their tears, and considered unfit for the office because they were too emotional. That was stupid too.

When Hillary got teary, I thought, well, yeah, she's under a lot of stress. I'd probably cry now and then too. Mostly I was annoyed that the press even bothered to report it. Oh my god, look, she's a human being! Big news! Big news! Hillary Clinton has tear ducts, and they function!

Tears are not a reason to dismiss a person running for president. But they're also not reason enough to vote for someone.

Was the AP reporter just offering conjecture - or did some women actually say Hillary's tears made them want to vote for her? "Umm, hmm, let's see, health care, global warming, oil prices, the war in Iraq - oooh, look, she's crying! Well, that's it, she's got my vote!"

Then there's the woman who said she voted for Hillary because she, the voter, is a feminist. Okay, well, fine, I guess. But does being a femininst automatically mean you can only vote for a female contender? Because if it does, I guess I'm not a feminist. I thought being a feminist meant making up my own mind.

I don't have anything against Hillary Clinton. She's smart, she's able, she's experienced. I just like Obama better - he's calm, self-assured, soft-spoken, grounded. He's also smart, able and experienced.

As my friend Monique said this morning, "I still have hope."


Here's a link to someone else's opinion: http://www.vote.com/magazine/columns/dickmorris/column60530264.phtml