OK, Barack, and you too, John. Start blubbering. Show them your soft, feminine, vulnerable side. Choke when you say "change," gentlemen, and choke with feeling. You know, for the children.
Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing -- both the brilliance of fatigue and the volatility of voters.
"I was moved," said a retired teacher of Hillary's glandular moment. And where there was one, there were thousands of similar sentiment, ultimately unwilling "to leave her in a time of trouble," as another Clinton-voter put it.
This morning Michael Powell of the New York Times succinctly framed the early history of this amusing and literal watershed: "When [Hillary] grew teary-eyed, television played the moment as a faux pas."
It did indeed. At the time I was baffled as to the why, and perplexed by pundits' nearly uniform declarations of scorn, ridicule and greater impending doom for the tearful candidate. For the incident was that very kind of utter meaninglessness but emotional seduction that can grip the multitudes and gyrate them like a spinning dime.
Late yesterday afternoon I sat dumbfounded watching Katrina vanden Heuval of The Nation pontificate on the sexist hostility of it all -- the pigs -- and emphasize the incident as a blistering negative for Hillary. Network commentators jumped on her choking only because she was a woman, said Katrina -- ignoring, as merely one example, Ed Muskie's campaign-obliterating choke in 1972.
In fact, Ms. vanden Heuval did have the sexist part right. It's just that she had its effect precisely backward. All in all Hillary's tears were an immense plus -- only Mr. Nixon could go to China, and only Mrs. Clinton could get away with blubbering on camera in this otherwise all-male campaign.
Had Obama or Edwards suffered an emotional breakdown Monday while talking about their "feelings," both likely would have sustained Muskie-like repercussions -- Sure they're tired, voters and pundits would have said; but then asked, Was there some element of emotional instability underlying their "faux pas"?
But who knows. They may have to risk it, for there was instant talk last night of Hillary's "new narrative." Translation: Prepare yourself for more blubbering. "As the television networks sounded her victory, Mr. McAuliffe, former head of the Democratic National Committee, declared that moment a signal of Mrs. Clinton’s lifelong passions." Good grief.
According to exit polls, it was registered Democrats above all others who were emotionally credulous and intellectually befuddled, backing Hillary with "solid support" versus Obama's independent base. Again, it's astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. For nearly seven years hardcore Democrats have decried George Bush's mindless jingoism and illegal interventionism -- and then what do they do, when they have a chance to reverse it all? You got it. They march right out and cast a vote for the one Democratic candidate who helped launch the mindlessness and has been its staunchest Democratic supporter ever since.
Add to that exit-polling curiosity this one as well: Interviewers "found that 46 percent of respondents named Mr. Obama as the candidate most likely to defeat a Republican in November; 36 percent said that of Mrs. Clinton." Go figure.
What's more, "more voters viewed her as qualified to be commander in chief than said Mr. Obama was ready for that role." And why's that? Only because she was waving the flag behind the artillery with the best of the neocons -- you know, the ones Democrats despise.
The tear-seduction may pass, though, just as suddenly as it gripped the contradictory Dems. That's the way these things work (although not if Hillary and Terry McAuliffe have anything to say about it). Plus, Nevada and South Carolina still look hopeful for Obama, which would put Hillary back into the loss column and create yet more strain on her financial resources.
One can take guesses, one can predict, but of course there's no way of knowing. Obama may genuinely start blubbering sometime today, and we could have a whole new ballgame. One simply never knows, which is what makes these gladiatorial contests so eternally fascinating, and frequently astonishing.
If nothing else, however, yesterday did confirm the long-offered observation of countless political philosophers: In the hands of well-meaning fools, there's nothing more dangerous than democracy.