Bob Novak writes: "... whereas Muskie's tears were involuntary, only the naive can believe Clinton was not artfully playing for sympathy from her sisters."
Okay, so now I'm not only petty (according to Timothy Noah), I'm also naive?
Novak assumes that: a) Hillary is a good enough actor to pull it off, b) she knew in advance that tears would draw sympathy (empathy?) from other women, c) the media would run the clip over and over again so everyone would see it, d) the media and fellow candidate Edwards would anger female voters with their negative commentary and, e) her "tears" are the reason she won.
That last one is a pretty big leap, don't you think? Especially when many of the pundits were saying they thought "crying" was the final nail in her campaign's coffin because it showed weakness.
Hillary is brilliant and calculating but she doesn't have a crystal ball.
If she does happen to be psychic - isn't that who we should have in the White House?
I'm still pissed off that Hillary's brief moment with a crack in her voice and eyes welling is being compared to Muskie's blubbering.