# Do we want a cry baby as the world's most powerful person?



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Jan 2008)

Imagine Hillary as Presi. First time the Russians beat the Yanks at basketball, she would have a good long cry and then nuke them.


----------



## Caveat (10 Jan 2008)

Harchibald said:


> Imagine Hillary as Presi. First time the Russians beat the Yanks at basketball, she would have a good long cry and then nuke them.


 
Not entirely sure about Obama's presidential gravitas either.

Can't remember the exact quote but on returning from a trip to England he apparently blabbed excitedly,  something along the lines of:

"They let me sit in Churchill's chair and everything!"


----------



## elefantfresh (10 Jan 2008)

> "They let me sit in Churchill's chair and everything!"



Plug it in boys!


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jan 2008)

What odds it's all moot and the _Republicans _will sweep back in anyway? I think _NH_ suggested how little one should depend on the pollsters anyway...


----------



## BillK (10 Jan 2008)

The tears worked in New Hampshire - or am I just  a cynic?


----------



## Remix (10 Jan 2008)

Democrats in the US - who sometimes try to out-liberal each other - are in a jam. Is it more enlightened to support a woman or a black man for president ? 
One suggestion to solve this problem and unite the party is that Hilary and Obama should step aside and let Oprah Winfrey run


----------



## ninsaga (10 Jan 2008)

Seemingly Bertie gave Hilary a call & said to her - 'hey I say ya crying on da telly da uder night!' and she replied 'well it worked for you Bertie!'


----------



## MugsGame (10 Jan 2008)

> world's most powerful person?



Who'd that be then -- Chuck Norris?



> Imagine Hillary as Presi.



What's this got to do with your title?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Jan 2008)

ninsaga said:


> Seemingly Bertie gave Hilary a call & said to her - 'hey I say ya crying on da telly da uder night!' and she replied 'well it worked for you Bertie!'


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jan 2008)

ninsaga said:


> Seemingly Bertie gave Hilary a call & said to her - 'hey I say ya crying on da telly da uder night!' and she replied 'well it worked for you Bertie!'


© _Phoenix Magazine_?


----------



## Remix (10 Jan 2008)

ClubMan said:


> I think _NH_ suggested how little one should depend on the pollsters anyway...


 
Despite all the predictions by the pollsters, Hillary Clinton refused to roll over. (I wonder how many times has Bill heard that?).


----------



## ninsaga (10 Jan 2008)

ClubMan said:


> © _Phoenix Magazine_?



© Text message from a friend!


----------



## ninsaga (10 Jan 2008)

Remix said:


> Despite all the predictions by the pollsters, Hillary Clinton refused to roll over. (I wonder how many times has Bill heard that?).



Or brought to her knees perhaps


----------



## Elphaba (10 Jan 2008)

C'mon guys, it's so obvious she was faking it, however, she's provided
all you simple minded fools with an opportunity to make some really bad jokes.


----------



## Remix (10 Jan 2008)

After the NH victory Bill Clinton started to give quite a good speech for his wife. He said, "There are two things I want to say about Hillary. First, I'd still vote for her even if we had never married . . . and . . . Sorry, I forgot the second one . . . I'm still thinking about if we never got married."

Also Obama failed to win in NH after getting 100% of the black vote - a guy named Larry.


----------



## REMFAN (11 Jan 2008)

Remix said:


> One suggestion to solve this problem and unite the party is that Hilary and Obama should step aside and let Oprah Winfrey run


 
Bono was asked a few years back if he'd ever fancy being the Irish President, his reply was 'I couldn't take the paycut!'. Oprah would likely have the same answer!


----------



## ClubMan (11 Jan 2008)

Anyone else of the opinion that most of the broadcast and printed media coverage in this part of the world seems to  focus purely on look and feel issues (_Clinton's _tears, Obama's "popstar" status, the religious beliefs of various _Republican _candidates etc.) without actually informing us what the different candidates' political policies are?


----------



## Caveat (11 Jan 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Anyone else of the opinion that most of the broadcast and printed media coverage in this part of the world seems to focus purely on look and feel issues (_Clinton's _tears, Obama's "popstar" status, the religious beliefs of various _Republican _candidates etc.) without actually informing us what the different candidates' political policies are?


 
Yes good point - but maybe there isn't much to report in terms of "real isshues" (as Gerry Adams would say) as they haven't said/revealed much.

Every time I've heard Clinton or Obama speak in recent months it's always been very vague, soundbite filled, general optimism about "a great nation again" and "equality". (which is not unusual in US politics)

They sound like contestants in a Miss California pageant.


----------



## Purple (11 Jan 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Anyone else of the opinion that most of the broadcast and printed media coverage in this part of the world seems to  focus purely on look and feel issues (_Clinton's _tears, Obama's "popstar" status, the religious beliefs of various _Republican _candidates etc.) without actually informing us what the different candidates' political policies are?


Because they are electing the person, not the party. The policies are hashed out at party conventions after the candidate has been selected.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> Because they are electing the person, not the party. The policies are hashed out at party conventions after the candidate has been selected.


Yeah - but it would make sense to elect the person based on their broad political agenda. Having casually followed the coverage here I honestly have no idea what the broad political and economic agendas of the different candidates on both sides are. I'm just wondering if our media coverage is overlooking brass tacks stuff that is covered in more detail in the _US_?


----------



## elefantfresh (11 Jan 2008)

Vote Wiggum -


----------



## Remix (11 Jan 2008)

> Yeah - but it would make sense to elect the person based on their broad political agenda. Having casually followed the coverage here I honestly have no idea what the broad political and economic agendas of the different candidates on both sides are. I'm just wondering if our media coverage is overlooking brass tacks stuff that is covered in more detail in the _US_?


 
Don't most of the candidates have their own websites that go into a bit more detail ?

E.g Ron Paul is at 

It covers his stance on various issues. You will also learn that Ron Paul is a practicing gynecologist. In fact, he’s the only presidential candidate to tell women to take off their clothes more times than Bill Clinton.


----------



## ClubMan (11 Jan 2008)

Remix said:


> Don't most of the candidates have their own websites that go into a bit more detail ?


Yes - but I was talking specifically about media coverage in this part of the world.


----------



## Purple (11 Jan 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Yeah - but it would make sense to elect the person based on their broad political agenda. Having casually followed the coverage here I honestly have no idea what the broad political and economic agendas of the different candidates on both sides are. I'm just wondering if our media coverage is overlooking brass tacks stuff that is covered in more detail in the _US_?


 Yes, the US media does go into more detail, especially local media coverage (local being State or city media, both of which are bigger than our national media).
Our coverage is shallow and biased, just like we accuse their media of being.


----------



## Purple (11 Jan 2008)

Remix said:


> It covers his stance on various issues. You will also learn that Ron Paul is a practicing gynecologist. In fact, he’s the only presidential candidate to tell women to take off their clothes more times than Bill Clinton.


----------



## z104 (11 Jan 2008)

Given the choice between a black man, a woman or a Republican for president, Do you think Americans may chose another Republican for the job?

Is the USA ready for a black president or female president?


----------



## Remix (11 Jan 2008)

Niallers said:


> Is the USA ready for a black president or female president?


 

IMO yes but whether Hillary and Obama are the candidates who can pull it off is another question.

The "Hillary cried, Obama died" storyline was very common after NH but others noted that Obama became less popular under NH scrutiny.

Obama had been canonised by the media and has had a free pass up to now. 

But like Hillary he is, by some reports, at core, a down-the-line liberal Democrat

And it's those lefty-lib leanings - if confirmed - might trip them up - more so than race or gender.


----------



## daithi (11 Jan 2008)

..has anyone ever seen Ralph Wiggum and George W Bush in the same room at the same time???

daithi


----------



## ninsaga (11 Jan 2008)

Niallers said:


> Is the USA ready for a black president or female president?



Well.... Words to 'America' by Morrisey.....

America your head's too big, 
Because America, Your belly is too big. 
And I love you, I just wish you'd stay where you is 

In America, The land of the free, they said, 
And of opportunity, In a just and a truthful way.
_But where the president, is never black, female or gay, and until that day,
you've got nothing to say to me, to help me believe_


----------



## Sn@kebite (11 Jan 2008)

I would be more worried about Hillary's bitterness issues from Bill's infidelity. More so than the fact she's a cry baby and has anger issues.

Look at all the dictators in the past. They all come from unhappy backgrounds, and were weak. It's ok to come from an unhappy childhood and be strong because then you will accept it.
But Hilary crying prooves that she is a weak attention seeker, who looks for the sympathy of the US.
IMO if Hillary gets into office we have another terrible president.


----------



## PMU (11 Jan 2008)

Big girls don't cry


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Jan 2008)

PMU said:


> Big girls don't cry


----------



## PMU (12 Jan 2008)

Harchibald said:


>


Shame on you, you told me lies - big girls don't cry


----------



## RainyDay (12 Jan 2008)

Harchibald said:


> Imagine Hillary as Presi. First time the Russians beat the Yanks at basketball, she would have a good long cry and then nuke them.



Why would you have a problem with a world leader crying in public?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Jan 2008)

RainyDay said:


> Why would you have a problem with a world leader crying in public?


Oh yeah! Imagine Churchill: "We will fight them on the beaches...blurb, blurb" "We will never surrender...blurb blurb, I want my mammy"

That would really inspire confidence.


----------



## ninsaga (12 Jan 2008)

Looks like the tears are starting to rub off - now [broken link removed] is at it also


----------



## RainyDay (12 Jan 2008)

Harchibald said:


> Oh yeah! Imagine Churchill: "We will fight them on the beaches...blurb, blurb" "We will never surrender...blurb blurb, I want my mammy"
> 
> That would really inspire confidence.



It would actually inspire confidence for me, that someone is confident enough in themselves to show their emotions in public. 

To be honest, the 'cry baby' and 'I want my mammy' slagging sounds far more childish to me than any tears.


----------



## z104 (12 Jan 2008)

I think she was faking, either that or she is emotionally unstable.

I'd prefer to know that she was faking because if it's the other then i'd be worried about her running a country that has atomic weapons.

I bet you'd find a few countries that would like to test her just like when that young whipper snapper Kennedy got into power.


----------



## RainyDay (12 Jan 2008)

Faking is indeed a possibility, but on the other hand, I don't accept that tears in public are a sign of emotional instability. To link this with nuclear weapons is just slightly stretching the credibility of the point.


----------



## cole (12 Jan 2008)

Sn@kebite said:


> IMO if Hillary gets into office we have another terrible president.


 
What'll happen to Mary McAleese then?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Jan 2008)

Ah, lighten up _Rainyday_

Of course she was faking.  Anybody who has put up with yer man for so long must be a hard chaw.


----------



## Sn@kebite (12 Jan 2008)

cole said:


> What'll happen to Mary McAleese then?


Eh?!


----------



## cole (12 Jan 2008)

Sn@kebite said:


> IMO if Hillary gets into office *we* have another terrible president.


 
Don't know about you but Mary McAleese is my president.


----------



## Simeon (12 Jan 2008)

I must say Hillary ......... a cunning stunt but no cigar!


----------



## Sn@kebite (13 Jan 2008)

cole said:


> Don't know about you but Mary McAleese is my president.


LOL... Yes, I didn't mean only Ireland I meant the world.

I think Al-Qaeda are being strengthened by the US's moronic foreign policies. And 50-100 yrs down the line they will be able to attack more countries than just the USA, UK, Spain, Russia and themselves.


----------



## stir crazy (16 Jan 2008)

RainyDay said:


> Why would you have a problem with a world leader crying in public?



I think the only genuine 'political' tears I ever saw was caught on video when George Bush, while visiting a classroom full of kids, was delivered the news about 911 by a secret service agent. I dont' judge those tears as weakness because he wasnt crying for himself but for the people he lost under his watch. 

Otherwise I think crying in public is pathetic. A world leader might as well lose his temper in public. whats the difference ? The key point is *lack of control of oneself*.

Do people have such a paranoid lack of faith in public leaders that they are required to cry in public to prove their 'human' credentials ? Its' just another form of manipulation. Generally a leader crying for him or herself is either weak or  a manipulative liar in my opinion. And it makes the west look weak to those non democratic regimes which are encouraged by signs of weakness. And of course we dont control how the public interprets it , the media does. Bah Humbug !


----------



## annR (16 Jan 2008)

I don't think we need to worry about Hillary Clinton being weak or not in control of herself.

I didn't see the clip, but did she actually cry? I thought she just got emotional and looked like she was about to cry. Maybe she decided to let her emotions show? This does not mean that they were faked, or that she is weak or not in control of herself.  Call it manipulation if you want, aren't they all attempting to manipulate the voters by all sorts of means; I don't think that showing some emotion would rank as particularly bad in terms of manipulation when you compare it to the smear campaigns, negative campaigning etc 

She's usually slated for being overly calculating and ruthlessly ambitious, adjectives which would not be used if she were a man IMO. Maybe showing some emotion (faked or not) is a good strategy for her.



> And it makes the west look weak to those non democratic regimes which are encouraged by signs of weakness


Well many of those regimes where women are 2nd class citizens would interpret a woman in power as a weakness anyway whether she was bawling or not.


----------



## Purple (16 Jan 2008)

The one thing that we can be sure of is that the Irish media will continue with their simplistic Republican = Bad, Democrat = Good reporting on the US election. I would vote Democrat if I was American but the bias and laziness of our media is laughable.  
And the same clowns in RTE who are guilty of this will insinuate with smug superiority that the American media is biased and inferior.


----------



## Remix (16 Jan 2008)

The whole democratic campaign of Hilary vs. Obama has become quite an entertaining but farcical pile-up of political correctness.

Those seeing it purely in gender terms want to see a woman in power. But then they can be reminded that according to the calculations of suffering devised by political correctness, blacks deserve jobs before privileged white people.

When it was pointed out that Obama was also relatively young, there were allegations of ageism being hurled.

I don't think you could write a better parody of political correctness ! 


Leno:
"It looks like the Democratic field has really narrowed down. It’s going to be a black man or a white woman.
A black man or a white woman. 
You know, this is the same decision Michael Jackson has to make every morning of his life. "

Yee Hee! Shamone m*f*s!


----------



## RainyDay (16 Jan 2008)

stir crazy said:


> Do people have such a paranoid lack of faith in public leaders that they are required to cry in public to prove their 'human' credentials ? Its' just another form of manipulation. Generally a leader crying for him or herself is either weak or  a manipulative liar in my opinion. And it makes the west look weak to those non democratic regimes which are encouraged by signs of weakness. And of course we dont control how the public interprets it , the media does. Bah Humbug !


I don't that anyone (and certainly not me) suggested that public leaders are now *required *to cry in public for any reason.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Jan 2008)

annR said:


> I didn't see the clip, but did she actually cry? I thought she just got emotional and looked like she was about to cry. Maybe she decided to let her emotions show?


 
She got tired and emotional, _annr_. Do we really want Eamon Dunphy's fingers on the nuclear button?


----------



## stir crazy (17 Jan 2008)

Three issues having nothing to do with the right of the candidates to be elected keep interfering with transmission of the key ideas those candidates actually stand for. They would be sexism for Hilary (which might explain her portrayal as cold and unliked, hence her tears as the solution), racism in the context of Obama and ageism in the context of Obama. 



annR said:


> Well many of those regimes where women are 2nd class citizens would interpret a woman in power as a weakness anyway whether she was bawling or not.



Yeah but it gives them yet another soundbite for their own home grown propaganda.




RainyDay said:


> I don't that anyone (and certainly not me) suggested that public leaders are now *required *to cry in public for any reason.



I'm referring to the American system. Very little of what they say is unscripted. I wouldnt  be surprised if Hilarys' handlers had responded to the criticism of her as an 'iron lady' by telling her to soften her image up just so. Margaret Thatcher went through a similar transformation at the advice of her handlers according to a BBC documentary I saw many moons ago.

It all just reminds me of the Nixon puppy incident where the Richard Nixon got given inappropriate gifts which in office (Bertie anyone?) and when pulled up on this
he said he couldnt give the puppy back as his daughter loved it so much and it would break all their hearts. Cue more votes for being human for which quality 99% of us should be in office. The big fallacy is it had nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Similarly public emotion has nothing to do with the ability to govern but cynically it can improve electability among the American public.


----------

