According to Nathan Moore, weeping like this disqualifies one from the presidency:
Oh, yeah? Well does the weeping done by the President in the following video footage disqualify him?
Or what about his father? Should we think less of him as a leader because he cried for his son?
And it's not like Republicans haven't complained about how difficult things can get sometimes:
So, it's pretty obvious that Nathan Moore is just grasping at straws for the sake of Republican points. At least accusing her of faking would have carried more credibility than intolerance (which is the lack of virtue) for crying. There are plenty of things to criticize Hillary Clinton for, but weakness is not one of them.
UPDATE: Apparently Republican men aren't the only ones with idiotic responses to Hillary's weepage. Over at the Coffee House, they're busting a Democratic Candidate for being somewhat lame-brained himself:
John Edwards shot himself in a nether region this way:Geez, Mr. Edwards.
Edwards, speaking at a press availability in Laconia, New Hampshire, offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to bring into question Clinton’s ability to endure the stresses of the presidency. Edwards responded, “I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business.”
Now, this is the kind of response that gives my entire sex a bad name--the "resolve" to rough up the opposition any old way. Where is Edwards' regional charm all of a sudden? I do wonder what it is the reporters heard that led them to paraphrase his first response as "offering little sympathy"--and would be interested to know if any readers see a fuller quote--but in any event, I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is a wise human being, and yes, wise human beings have been known to tear up.