Confronting gender bias, finding a voice: Hillary Clinton and the New Hampshire crying incident.

• Author: Shepard, Ryan
• Position: Report

On January 7, 2008, during an appearance in a Portsmouth, New Hampshire coffee shop, Senator Hillary Clinton did the seemingly unthinkable. Seated with a group of sixteen undecided voters, Clinton took a question from a freelance photographer who asked how she handled the pressures of a contentious campaign. At first, Clinton responded by joking about her physical appearance, but she quickly shifted to a discussion alluding to her recent trouble in the election. "It's not easy," she admitted. Declaring that she was passionate about running and that she cared deeply about the future of the country, Clinton paused briefly and appeared to choke up. "The entire incident lasted just two minutes," Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson (2009) later wrote, "but it dominated the news of the last full day of the primary campaign" (p. 138).

Senator Clinton's tears were controversial because they brought to mind another emotional moment during a Democratic primary in the same state decades earlier. On a wintery day in February 1972 -fresh from a victory in the Iowa caucuses -Democratic presidential candidate Ed Muskie mounted a platform truck and spoke in front of the headquarters of New Hampshire's major newspaper, the Manchester Union Leader. Just days before the state's primary, Muskie, who was at the time the front-runner in the campaign, was protesting the publication of a series of stories that bashed his wife and claimed that he used derogatory references for French Canadians while stumping in Florida (Well, 1973, p. 59). In a surprising moment, the senator choked up, had difficulty maintaining his composure, and wiped his face. Journalists described Muskie as weeping and sobbing throughout his remarks and, despite his claim that he was merely wiping melting snow from his cheeks, his appearance was forever known as "the crying incident" ("Campaign teardrops," 1972; Lutz, 1999; Renshon, 1996; Weil, 1973). Instantly, many wondered whether Muskie was emotionally stable enough to hold the highest office in the country (Lutz, 1999), and some say his support eventually evaporated as a result (Jamieson & Waldman, 2003, p. 36; Renshon, p. 151; Weil, 1973, pp. 59-60). Explaining why he lost the nomination to George McGovern, Muskie claimed that the incident "changed people's minds about me, of what kind of a guy I was. They were looking for a strong steady [candidate], and here I was weak" (Renshon, 1996, p. 151).

It was no surprise, then, that the media predicted Senator Clinton's demise in the 2008 New Hampshire Democratic primary after she teared-up momentarily in Portsmouth. At the time, Clinton's campaign faced an uphill battle. Every major poll conducted between the Iowa caucuses-which Clinton lost-and the New Hampshire primary put Senator Barack Obama in the lead by no less than five percentage points (Liss, 2008). Thus, when Clinton choked up she was perceived by many as doomed to the same fate as Ed Muskie. For example, Hendrik Hertzberg (2008) wrote, "Among grizzled veterans the memory of 1972 was still vivid: if Senator Edmund Muskie, of neighboring Maine, had crumpled his ticket to the nomination by appearing ... with wet cheeks, how could Hillary survive?" Karen Breslau (2008) predicted that a day after a loss in the primary "pictures of a red-eyed Clinton will go up under the inevitable headline 'Trail of Tears.'" Although some acknowledged that times had changed and America was more receptive to displays of emotion, others cautioned that Bill Clinton could cry, but Hillary certainly could not (Noveck, 2007). A female presidential candidate, Tom Lutz (1999) argued, could lose everything for crying in front of a camera.

New Hampshire's election results, however, proved shocking. As the conservative commentator William Kristol summarized, "The pundits got it wrong, the pollsters got it wrong, [and] the voters crossed everyone out" (Liss, 2008). In defying all odds (Lithwick, 2008), Clinton received forty percent of the vote to Obama's thirty-seven percent. Time reporter Joe Klein (2008) contended that the press was "wildly stupid in the days before the primary." Since many commentators believed that Clinton's campaign would be negatively impacted by her emotional moment, an important question remains unanswered: How did Clinton succeed where Muskie failed? More precisely, how did she apparently reverse her fortune, despite displaying emotional behavior that had long been considered a trigger for electoral failure?

This essay argues that one explanation for why Hillary Clinton's crying episode in New Hampshire temporarily improved her public image is that she demonstrated emotional intelligence, and that her subsequent comments refrained the election as an opportunity to discuss both the double binds that female candidates face and the perceived gender bias in the media coverage of her campaign. This argument is developed in four parts. First, the essay recounts Clinton's appearance in Portsmouth, and the events leading up to her emotional remarks. Second, it reviews the literature concerning the challenges female political candidates often face and contends that Clinton's refraining of the situation was a method of overcoming the gender bias haunting her since her days as First Lady. While crying often triggers ridicule of female leaders (Jamieson, 1995; Lutz, 1999; Noveck, 2007), this essay argues that it can be turned into a strategic opportunity when it is deemed appropriate for the situation, when the tears humanize the crier, and when the display of emotion is perceived as moderate. Third, the framework outlined above is used to explain Clinton's surprising success in New Hampshire. Finally, the study considers the implications of this incident for the study of political argumentation.

THE DEBATE AT SAINT ANSELM COLLEGE, AND CLINTON'S EMOTIONAL MOMENT

Hillary Clinton had plenty of reasons to worry the week before the New Hampshire primary. She had suffered an embarrassing defeat in the Iowa caucuses, where she placed third and received just thirty percent of the women's vote to Obama's thirty-five percent. Clearly momentum was not on her side. Furthermore, although she had been favored to win the nomination at the beginning of the campaign, every major poll in New Hampshire indicated that Clinton had fallen well behind Obama (Liss, 2008). Just days before the election two new polls suggested that Senator Obama had opened a double-digit lead over Clinton (Healy & Santora, 2008). The Clinton machine, some said, was "shaken ... down to its bolts" (Tumulty, 2008).

To make matters worse, Clinton faced a grueling debate at Saint Anselm College on January 5, 2008 in which her biggest rivals -Obama and John Edwards -appeared to team up in an effort to eliminate her from the race. Two attacks on Clinton were widely cited as the most memorable parts of the debate (Cohen, 2008). First, there was an accusation that Clinton represented the status quo. For the most part, this attack was made by Edwards, who called himself and Obama the only true candidates of change ("Democrats spar," 2008). "[We] finished first and second in the Iowa caucus," Edwards suggested, "I think in part as a result of that" ("Democrats spar," 2008). Additionally, in an allusion to Clinton, Edwards argued, "Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of the status quo attack" ("Democrats spar," 2008). Discussing the status quo later in the debate, Edwards indirectly suggested that Clinton represented a philosophy resulting in "a very few Americans getting wealthier and wealthier," "the biggest corporations in America's profits [going] through the roof," all while "47 million people [have] no health care [and] 37 million" are "worried about feeding and clothing their children" ("Democrats spar," 2008). The second accusation made against Clinton during the debate was that she was unlikeable. Asked how she felt about some Americans' dislike for her, Clinton jokingly stated that her feelings were hurt, and then praised Obama for being "very likable" ("Democrats spar," 2008). After Clinton humorously concluded, "I don't think I'm that bad," Obama added in jest, "You're likeable enough, Hillary" ("Democrats spar," 2008). While some understood Obama's comment as an attempt to be funny, many pundits called it a cheap shot. For example, just seconds after the debate, ABC's George Stephanopoulos asserted, "Not a good moment for Barack Obama there. I thought he looked a little peevish, a little small" ("Democrats spar," 2008).

The pressure of a contentious campaign finally got the best of Clinton, and on January 7, 2008, she reacted with a brief but tearful instance of self-disclosure. During an appearance with sixteen undecided female voters at a cafe in Portsmouth, Clinton was asked by an audience member, "How do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?" (Kornblut, 2008, p. A09). Clinton's answer was an obvious response to the accusations from the previous night's debate. Initially, Clinton expressed that she was most offended by the charge that she was an opportunistic elitist and widely disliked. In response, she characterized her campaigning as a selfless act in which she was fighting for the common good. "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do," Clinton said (p. A09). "I have so many opportunities for this country," the senator exclaimed while choking up for a second, "and I just don't want to see us fall backwards" (Healy & Santora, 2008). Following applause by the audience, Clinton answered questions about her ambition: "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political. It's not just public" (Kornblut, 2008, p. A09). Clinton then clarified that she, too, was an agent of change. "I see what's happening," she claimed, "and we have to reverse it. Some people think elections are a game ... [but] it's about our country. It's about our kids' futures. And it's really...