She was a tired woman who was asked by a non-reporter how she did it. How did she keep going? She has answered this question herself about why she got misty-eyed (no real tears fell) and she simply said she was touched because someone thought to ask about her. I can see any woman reacting in this manner in the stressful time between Iowa and New Hampshire, in which she was feeling discouraged and wondering if all her work had been for nothing.

I will tell you frankly that I see in you, over and over, a tendency to respond to women who are hurting with a lack of empathy. That is what John Edwards did also. Certainly it shouldn't cost him his campaign, but co-inciding with the absurd attacks of the Rush-O'Reilly set it may have just had an effect that he certainly hadn't intended. The famous independence of the NH voters combined with a backlash by women voters handed Clinton a victory that was more at Edward's expense than Obama's.

I say all of the above as someone who is currently an Edwards supporter. What Edward's said wasn't dreadful, but it was a serious miscalculation.

You seriously overreacted to a passing comment made by a presidential candidate who is himself under an enormous amount of stress. And his comments were reasonable! Clinton's teary-eyed, choked-up moment was soooooo calculated and contrived...at least half the women posting here agree with me, as do all the women I work with. She wasn't being asked about her dead child, or her dog that got run over, or her mother's terminal illness, or the fire that burned her house down, or her divorce, or anything that might reasonably be expected to induce such near-weepiness. She was being asked about the rigors of the campaign trail, with a question that sexist in its very structure, tone, and timing (and note it was asked by a WOMAN.) It was designed to give her an opening for an emotional scene. In fact, given Clinton's own history of stage-managing campaign appearances to include planted questions (remember, she was caught earlier in this campaign doing that very thing??!) I wouldn't be at all surprised if the question was planted and the "concerned voter" who asked it was a ringer. Sorry if that sounds too cynical, but it's politics and the Clintons we're talking about here. At the very least she leapt at the opportunity provided by the woman and milked it for all it was worth!

Fer Chrissakes, the woman is running for president! She's going to be faced with life-and-death decisions, tough policy choices, a constant stream of intense criticism, a hostile opposition party, constant media exposure and scrutiny, tough negotiations with diplomats and foreign leaders and congressional leaders, and more. One of the major selling points of her campaign is how tough she is, how much she's already weathered and survived, etc. Why is it sexist and Orc-like to question the sincerity of the oh-so-conveniently-timed moment, and send a little zinger her way for it? Do we really want as a president facing issues of war, terrorism, recession, financial crisis, etc. someone who almost broke down when asked how she gets out of bed in the morning to face another day of campaigning? Get with the program, Ms. Traister!

And although I'm sure it's already down the memory hole, I seem to recall Mitt Romney tearing up a couple of times on camera in the last few months, and plenty of sarcastic commentary being directed at him, let alone questions about the sincerity of the moments. But I guess you only get constipated when it's a woman on the receiving end of the barbs. Big surprise!

When I read Ms. Traister's piece, I thought she was one of the few people who couldn't see through Hillary's well-timed "show of emotion." A friend suggested to me that the stunt was designed to attract the woman vote. I was insulted, because I thought it was so ... stupid.

At first I wasn't sure whether it was genuine or fake; now I think it was both. I think she was genuinely frustrated and discouraged. Fair enough. But this woman is the queen of control. Had she not wanted to make a statement of emotion, she'd have never done it. Just look at the timing! *Of course* it was calculated! And notice how smoothly she went right to "some of us are ready, some of us aren't. Some of us are right, some of us aren'."

I hope that's not what swung the woman vote. I really do. I hope it was her assertiveness in the debate. Or the desire of New Hampshire to reist a coronation. Or that fact that she worked her ass off after Iowa, taking every question, listening, putting herself out there.

I also hope it wasn't her and Bill's embarassing slide into Rovian attack. In the course of 36 hours, she warned of a terrorist attack on the first day of the new President's term and accused Obama of "flip-flopping" (for votes she made too). Bill blamed the media. They both dismissed Obama's success as "false hopes" and a "fairy tale" (and BTW, how does that not implicitly calls voters self-deluded?). She never congratulated Obama on his Iowa win.

The Clinton's surely are in it to win it, Rovian style. And after New Hampshire, it looks like they're targetting woman to get it done. And I no longer underestimate the effect of the stunts she pulls to do.

Congratulations, Rebecca. Your response was perhaps more typical than I thought. And I'm thinking this won't be the last time Hillary pulls that lever, so I just can't wait for your next predictable foaming rant.

But you rather dilute your own point by lecturing me, don't you? :D

Yeah, I just back on since I last posted yesterday and I had to laugh out loud. I mean you gotta wonder if maybe they were handing out the stars in an effort to entice some others to write similar anti-Edwards foaming-at-the-mouth rants so that the final tally wouldn't look so incredibly stacked against this piece. Hey, look at the bright side. At least we know somebody working for Salon at least had to go through the letters section. I think it's safe to say at least somebody there can't deny that the overwhelming response from the readers' letters was that they were not impressed with the offering.

Smith, I'm even less impressed with your latest offerings as well. What was that? Three rambling posts aimed my way? First, it's not a question of opinion by consensus. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that a majority of posters here can read an article, draw a conclusion completely on his or her own free of anyone else and yet all reach the same conclusion and form a consensus especially when the subject matter was offered to readers in a polarizing form where the reactions to it usually will not range past "either-or".

In addition, it's of absolutely no concern to myself and I'm willing to bet no concern to nearly everybody else here whether you "don't especially like" me or not. It's one thing to waste your time, but at least have the common decency to respect the hundreds of others that come here who may not want to have to waste thier valuable time reading whatever personal feelings you can't manage to keep to yourself when they expect letters to revolve around the the article written. This is not your personal forum. It's here for the entire Salon membership community and I'm sure it's darn near a 100% majority that aren't coming here to put up with having to look at who you "especially like" or don't. By wasting thier time with nonsense about how you feel personally towards me or anybody else here for that matter, you selfishly dilute the content that other paying subscribers come here for.

Do you think your personal feelings toward someone here really come ahead of respect for the rest of the group as a whole. If you do, that's a shame for you...and unfotunately, for everybody else that comes here. Try to keep in mind that the community here is more than just yourself.