Hillary’s Hurting, But Will it Help?

As you know, reason and realism are what guides this writer—she tries her best, at least. The slobbering sentimentality that has been conflated with authenticity in our culture sickens; it’s corrupting too. But there is a huge gulf between sentimentality and real emotion. The trick is to be able to tell the one from the other.
During the debates in New Hampshire, ABC’s anchor prefaced a question to Hillary by saying, “Iowans liked Obama more than you.” Hillary looked stung and, for once, allowed her words to reflect her wounds. She told “Charlie” how painful that was. And she looked humble and hurt. The media missed that one, but it was Genuine Moment Number One.
Hillary’s Second Genuine Moment came as she teared-up during a meet-and-greet at a coffee shop in Portsmouth, N.H. She looked rather nice too.
To the extent that she exposed her usually rigid, puritanical, driven self—to that extent she scored points. The problem is that women, her voting bloc, can’t distinguish a fake Oprah moment from a real display of valuable feelings. (Not all feelings are valuable; some people are more capable than others of harboring valuable feelings—and thoughts.)
So, the value of such a display of emotion depends on the ability of people to distinguish fake from fabricated. I doubt American culture facilitates such perspicacity. (Here’s an example of wickedness; of hate-the-opponent-all-the-time; of “Hot Air.”)
Unfortunately for Hillary, even when she does finally let her guard down and reveals a side of herself nobody has seen before, it might never be appreciated.