Tears and Vying for High Office

If I were a Supreme Court nominee undergoing interrogation before the Senate Judiciary Committee, my wife might have left the room earlier in the process than did the wife of current real-life nominee Samuel Alito. But my wife's tears wouldn't be mostly engendered by criticism directed at her husband. In the main, she'd leave because of the posturing and absurdity of the whole process. She hates phoniness and pretense!

But the question is being posed on blogs and among pundits today: Do his wife's tears help Alito's prospects?

It may have caused Democratic senators to back off a bit, taking the edge off of an attack that, at times, appeared to be drawing political blood yesterday. (Particularly when another woman, Dianne Feinstein, was doing the questioning.)

Mrs. Alito's reaction was not planned or orchestrated, obviously. But I remember that Clarence Thomas' wife cried during his hearings as well. Her tears may have played some small part in Thomas weathering the Anita Hill controversy.

The fact that this question is being asked at all indicates that our society is still sexist enough that a woman crying pulls our heart strings.

Whether a male's tears still disqualify him for high office, as happened with Ed Muskie in his bid for the presidency in 1972, is unknown.

What might happen if a high-profile female pol like Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, or Christy Whitman cried?

I have a feeling that tears, except discreet trickles like those that ran across the cheeks of Bill Clinton at the Oklahoma City bombing memorial service, are still unacceptable in actual candidates or nominees for high office, irrespective of their gender.

The standard, right or wrong, seems to be that spouses may have tears, but if you vie, you may not cry.