And it's not because of vote totals.
I'm sure you've all heard of Hillary tearing up. Now, on the off chance that you haven't actually SEEN this "tearing up", this "emotional moment" that everyone is making such a big deal about, here's the video.
All right, now, if you're anything like me, your reaction is, "THAT is what they're making such a big deal out of? THAT is the 'emotional moment'?"
Now, there's of course the other meme going around about this, that Hillary faked it to gain attention etc. Which is certainly not without precedent (just think of all the waterworks that strong Republican men can come up with on cue). But that's irrelevant to me right now.
Giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt that it's genuine, let's not forget that we are the Democratic party - the party of compassion, of protecting the disadvantaged. Some of the stories that they are hearing on the trail, they'd probably have any normal person sobbing hours a day. Imagine having a person standing in front of you, giving you their story, asking you for help while trying to reconcile that with their pride and dignity, while believing that you can actually help them. That wouldn't get your waterworks going once in a while?
How is it that that is seen as the opposite of strong? It boggles my mind.
So, John Edwards made this comment in response:
John Edwards told reporters he was unaware of Clinton's emotional reaction and would not respond to it, but added, according to CNN's Dugald McDonnell: "I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being President of the United States is also a very tough business. And the President of the United States is faced with very, very difficult challenges every single day, difficult judgments every single day."
There are a lot of ways to try and give John Edwards the benefit of the doubt here, but they are all pretty labored. Perhaps he's responding to an implication in the air, from a reporter's tone of voice, that Hillary is weak, shouldn't be president, and is asking Edwards if he is similarly weak? I don't buy it. Edwards has always struck me as being very good at sussing out and objecting to an invalid premise of a question.
There's no way he got snowed under there. He's betraying a bias. He immediately translated a tale of Hillary being emotional as evidence of Hillary crashing and burning, and he tried to take advantage. He equated a display of emotion as weakness in his head, and responded from that bias.
Later on that day, he tried to explain himself:
Some may see this as positive spin. I think it's even worse. He just seems smug to me with his "Not that I can remember" statement. Even Elizabeth:
[...] did not pass on the political opportunity and added that voters will decide whether or not they want to see watery eyes.
The fact is, emotion is a human part of life and it is a source of strength, not weakness, and in my book, the Edwards' playing into this unhealthy frame is as offensive to me as a Democrat using Republican talking points to criticize other Democrats.
But most offensive and concerning to me is that with all of John Edwards' polish, I have trusted for a long time that it's just him being prepared, but still genuine. This kind of behavior runs completely counter than that because it betrays something that doesn't reconcile with the image of him having a heart-driven campaign. It makes me distrust that he's being on the level, it makes me distrust that he is really what he says he is.
If he apologizes, as I think he should, I think it could repair it and also perhaps be a benefit and an excuse to talk about a kind of bias that so many others can identify with.