Tracks of my tears

I want to get back to the crying incident. Much has been made of the "humanizing" effect that Clinton's tears had on voters. That red-headed demon, Maureen Dowd even devoted a column to it. (BTW can someone give Dowd the news flash that she isn't exactly helping the democrats these days? I think she may really be Coulter in a wig.) Maybe it did sway voters, showing them a side of Clinton they didn't think existed or as some have been saying, The ice queen melted a bit.

The sexism and pressure that is evident around the idea of a woman running for president is amazing to  me. Romney has cried THREE times now, just again Sunday on Meet the Press. Someone get the man stock in Kleenex. Listen, I think our president should be able to show emotion, whether it be a she or he. I don't want an automan running our nation. But let's not hold the woman candidate to a different standard. When the chick cries, she's weak or in Clinton's case many believed she was faking it. But when the dude wells up, that's ok, he's just showing his softer side, etc. Come on people!!!

I personally don't believe Clinton was faking. I do think that she is living under way more pressure than any of the male candidates however simply by trying to do this as a woman, when so many people are tripping over themselves to tear her down. Maybe the voters of New Hampshire are like me, sick of seeing her get destroyed just because she has a Y chromosome and that is why they voted for her. We can't know. But as the democratic side settles into the Triumvirate that we always knew it would be (goodbye Richardson, we hardly knew ya!) I still believe the race is too tight to discount anyone. Tears or no tears.

In other news, Bloomberg is still evidently considering a run, despite what he says. Well, duh! I honestly don't know much about the man at this point, although I do know that there has been talk of Chuck Hagel being his running mate should they opt to run a third-party campaign. The Hagel thing bodes well in my opinion. The man may be a republican, but he seems level-headed and straight-talking. I have read numerous things about him that I think recommend him, especially in regard to his stance on the Iraq fiasco. This quote alone, says volumes.

However, while in a perfect world I support the idea of the US having more than a two-party system, having lived through what havoc Nader wrought in 2000, (Yes I am one of those Democrats who believe he shares some blame for the disaster we have lived through for the last seven years.) I don't know that I am interested in playing that little game as of yet. If nothing else we have learned during the Dubya era just what kind of damage our president can do not only within our own country, but around the world. After all, communism doesn't sound half bad in print, but in reality . . . .

376 days left. From the man who pledged to bring "morality" back to the White House, from a speech in January 2005—

"Who could have possibly envisioned an erection—an election—in Iraq at this point in history?"