Liberal Women + Crocodile Tears = Desperate Losers

Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Obama have joined Hillary Clinton among the ranks of those who choked back passionate “tears” over various issues.  In each case, their sleeve-borne emotions, rather than strengthen their support, showed their positions to be ones of desperation and despair.

by Michael Naragon

In January of 2008, Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president was beginning to show the first real signs of strain.  The Democratic primary in Iowa had not simply been a coronation, and she was facing stiff competition from the inexperienced newcomer Barack Obama.  In a well publicized Q & A session, Clinton took a question about the difficulties of the campaign trail.  The result was a rare moment of emotion from the former First Lady.

Clinton’s emotional outburst may have helped her in the short term, as she used her display to connect with women in New Hampshire.  Criticism abounded, however, as her rivals claimed the tears were simply a political ploy.  That criticism seemed well founded a month later when, in Connecticut before the Super Tuesday vote, Clinton again resorted to tears at a campaign stop.  Clinton, of course, had a dismal showing on that Tuesday, and Obama began his meteoric rise to the White House.  The tears, it seems, were not enough to pull victory from the jaws of defeat.

Now, as if channeling Mrs. Clinton, both Nancy Pelosi and Michelle Obama have mustered tears in public appearances this week.

Pelosi, speaking in a press conference, compared the criticism of Obama’s policies as president to actual violence.  The “rhetoric” of those in opposition to the president’s ideas for nationalized energy in the form of the cap-and-trade bill and nationalized health care in the form of whatever bill ends up surviving the Democrat debate are equal, in Pelosi’s opinion, to riotous violence.  To emphasize her point, Pelosi’s voice quivered as she evoked memories of San Francisco in the late 1970s, when two city officials were assassinated in anti-gay violence.

So not only did Pelosi equate protests, such as the Tea Party movement and the March on Washington, with assassination and violence, she used an emotional appeal the likes of which her botoxed face has probably not experienced in some time.  The tide has turned against the policies which she and her president support, and the shift is palpable.  Pelosi understands what this means to her power base, and her tears were designed to put a “human” face on her fears of the People.

Finally, we have Exhibit C.  Michelle Obama has, not surprisingly, come out in favor of her husband’s health care “plan,” although, listening to the State media, one would think it was a revelation.  What was interesting about the First Lady’s exhortation to feminists this week was, again, the emotional appeal.  Voice quivering, eyes moistening with the tiniest hint of tears, Obama told the story about how she and her husband rushed their daughter to the pediatrician after the then-four-month old baby would not stop crying.  Heading to the emergency room, Obama recalled, she was just so thankful that they had private health insurance.  She then used this story to emphasize that others are not so “blessed.”

What Obama failed to mention is that, if she and her husband were not insured, they would have simply bypassed the pediatrician and gone straight to the ER.  Their daughter still would have been examined and still would have received treatment, if any was necessary.  When she should have gotten emotional because of the success of the system, she, like her husband, focused on the imagined failure.

After reviewing all three of these episodes, two things stand out.  First, all of these women made, or are attempting to make, an emotional appeal to soften their previously hard-nosed personas.  Clinton’s image of an ice queen is well documented, but neither Pelosi nor Obama is a slouch when it comes to the impression of their dominance.

Second, and more important, is why these emotional appeals were made.  Or, more precisely, for whom were these appeals presented?  It is obvious that Clinton believed that the votes and opinions of moderate and liberal women would be enough to push her over the top.  In New Hampshire, she was proved correct.  Pelosi and Obama appear to be running the “fairer sex” arm of the Obama spin machine, appealing to America’s women to help clamp down on unruly and unsightly protests against the most liberal president in our nation’s history and to assist that president in getting his disastrous agenda put into place.

The positive thing for conservatives is that this type of appeal, much like Jimmy Carter’s recent accusation of racism against the president, has nearly always been a sign of desperation and ultimately a harbinger of doom for those who have attempted it.  The only true tears liberals shed are produced when they lose their grip on power and control over the lives of the American people.