Hilary’s tears: weakness or strength?

Challenging questions for Hilary Clinton and our society in an emotional intelligence meets politics moment — a Newsweek article (Hillary Tears Up: A Muskie moment, or a helpful glimpse of ‘the real Hillary’?) asks if Hilary’s display of emotion will be seen as a sign of weakness, or of honesty?  And in any case, the emotion trumps the facts:

No one will remember the hour of detailed policy talk that preceded Clinton’s emotional moment

Will Americans confirm that:

anyone who needed to carry Kleenex in her purse was unfit for the highest office in the land

or will the conclusion come that emotion helps

a candidate who is seen as aloof and too tightly scripted appear more vulnerable, more human and more appealing

What do we really want in a leader?  This brings up so many questions about trust and emotion — do we trust people who hide their emotions or show them?  Do we prefer “false strength” to authenticity?  I suspect that genuineness+moderate strength goes further than appearance of big strength.
I also enjoyed reading comments on this video on youtube – which raise the question: Was it real anyway?

What do you think? Fake or real tears? Weak or strong?

One Reply to “Hilary’s tears: weakness or strength?”

  1. I found this genuine, but regret that implicit in what she said were subtle put downs relating to rival’s ‘lack of preparation and readiness’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *