I've discussed the wisdom of the 19th Amendment before, but I've never sunk so low as to accuse women of voting on pure emotion!
Then Clinton began getting emotional: "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know I have so many opportunities from this country just don't want to see us fall backwards," she said.Then, her voice breaking and tears in her eyes, she said, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political it's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it." ...
After the event, Pernold Young told ABC News that she was glad Clinton showed emotion.
"That was real," Pernold Young said.
Another woman in the group, Alison Hamilton of Portsmouth, New Hampshire said she, like most of the people in the group, had been leaning toward voting for Obama.
But after seeing Clinton become emotional, she said she was going to back Clinton.
"That was the clincher," Hamilton said.
If I made this stuff up I'd be branded as a sexist. Can't Hillary, the voters, the media, and America do better?
I don't believe men are any better. Anglophile democracy is a baby-show, who is the cutest / runs the biggest ad campaign / can release the most balloons?
Perhaps men are more likely to respond unreasonably to displays of strength or "balls".
And perhaps these are not such bad things; you are invited to judge the candidates' character, not just their policies. Especially for the role of president, personal charm and resonance with the public is a large fraction of the job. It's one of the reasons I have some (limited) sympathy for the unelected monarchy we have in Britain -- better to have our elected officials not be mixed up with the job of figurehead.
Jez.
jez: From this article I linked to a while ago about how society "uses" men I think that there's evidence that male instinct is more attuned to large social networks than in female instinct.