The message from the wingnut-o-sphere (which the NYTimes seems daily more determined to join) has been clear: if she cried, it was calculated. Why? Because if it's Hillary, it has to be. No other reason. It's impossible to determine whether or not this transcends gender, because there has not been a woman in her position for many years, if ever. In and of itself, that fact should shame us as a nation. Even the craziest retrograde third-world backwaters do better at electing women than we do: it was a goddamn crime, but Benazir Bhutto was murdered because she was a political enemy, not because she was a woman.
Indeed. So in order to not jump on that bandwagon, I offer this: