Such is the hatred in some quarters for Bill and Hillary Clinton that certain pundits are ready to wholeheartedly believe–or at least pretend to for a snazzy quote or a biting column–that when Hillary Clinton got all misty eyed in New Hampshire on Monday, the moment was preplanned and calculated for political effect. While we’re not sure if Hillary took any drama classes at Wellesley, it seems quite a stretch to think that she envisioned sick puppies in order to mist up. Here’s a short list of pundits who disagree. File under “cynics.”
In this morning’s New York Times Maureen Dowd–in a piece headlined “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?”– quoted an unnamed colleague as saying that Hillary’s “crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand.” He added dryly: “Crying doesn’t usually work in campaigns. Only in relationships.””
You’re so right, anonymous newsroom guy.
On Monday night’s edition of Fox News’ “The Big Story,” host Heather Nauert asked right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin if she thought Clinton’s choking up “was calculated to try to let voters know a little bit better who she is, show that softer side?” You could pretty much script what Malkin’s response might be, and if you don’t think that’s precisely why Nauert asked, then you’re probably not paying attention. Malkin played her part to perfection, responding, “I think the question answers itself. The Clintons don’t have a spontaneous bone in their collective body. Hillary Clinton doesn’t sneeze without it being planned, and I really think that this is going to backfire on the campaign…it does remind people that this woman is all about calculation.”
Right again, Michelle!
Later in the day on Fox, Bill Kristol, fresh from getting his facts wrong in his inaugural New York Times op-ed column, kept his crack political commentary fresh by declaring, “I don’t believe it was genuine. I think no Clinton cries without calculating first. This–and I think this was–if it was genuine, it was entirely solipsistic and narcissistic. It’s all about her…I think it’s entirely calculated.”
Well Bill, you were right about the war in Iraq, right about WMD, and right about how the invasion of Iraq would change the Middle East for the better. Why shouldn’t we believe you about this?
Paul McLeary is a former CJR staff writer. Since 2008, he has covered the Pentagon for Foreign Policy, Defense News, Breaking Defense, and other outlets. He is currently a defense reporter for Politico.