In which I make another abrupt about-face

Given my previously expressed viewpoints on this here blog, I'm sure most would expect me to have nothing but derision for Hillary Clinton's show of emotion yesterday. Yes, she almost cried, got a little choked up and had to fight back tears while responding to a question about who does her hair and makeup every day. And my initial reaction was to distrust it, to think that this was just another ploy to make her seem human and caring and REAL in a way that would hopefully help with her little likability problem.

But the more people talk about the tears heard round the world, the more annoyed I get. As I said last month, I don't think any candidate for president should cry under pressure. I said that when Mitt Romney cried twice in three days, and I mockingly presumed they had focus grouped whether crying would make people vote for him and had gotten a resounding yes. But Mitt's crying got almost no attention from the press or public--so why should Hillary's be treated any differently? Why is it a greater offense, something more open to public questioning of her emotional temperament and ability to deal with difficult situations, than it was clearly NOT for Romney?

This double standard is not new. Pat Schroeder ran for president in the 80s and was criticized all around for crying during the speech in which she bowed out of the race. We should not see a woman cry if she wants to be taken seriously as a candidate for leader of the free world, they said. Edmund Muskie told us that in the 70s when he cried in New Hampshire after the press was mean to his wife, and then suddenly went from front-runner to has-been. But the times have changed, and with them we have seen nearly every politician of the last 10 years feel the need to show their emotions when they think it politically expedient. Every politician, that is, except the women.

You can't have it both ways--she can't be the Hillbot when she's emotionless, droning and competent, and just another weak girl when she becomes so exhausted and frustrated that she nearly bursts into tears (but manages to regain her composure before a full on outpouring).

In the grand scheme of things, a brief flash of emotion shouldn't mean much. In particular, it shouldn't mean much here because I still suspect it was a planned tactic. But if it does matter, it should not be held against Hillary Clinton but not held against the male candidates in the race. While I agree there is no crying in politics, we all like to pretend there's no sexist double standards either. If so, this story should be just as much a non-event as Romney's was.