Now, I’m not saying that she was faking her moment of being “choked up” by the stresses of the campaign. I’m not saying that at all. What I will say is that I think she won New Hampshire because of her apparent “breakdown.”

Yes, I believe a presidential candidate won more votes in a primary because they cried in front of TV cameras right before the voting began.

I know how misogynistic that sounds. How it sounds like I’m one step from saying that she should “stay in the kitchen.” I assure you, I’m not saying that at all. In fact, two very strong women in my life were actually the ones to bring up the idea that she was faking it. Me, I don’t think that this was a window on the vulnerable Hillary, unwittingly showing through during a time of high stress. I think she’s much tougher than that. I think she’s tough and she’s smart and she knows how to maneuver politically.

What I will say is that I think it was a very politically savvy move for a candidate who was seen by many voters as plastic, detached and occasionally shrill. What’s the quickest way to soften that image? Well, traditionally, it’s been the kissing babies-type photo opportunity. This time around, I feel, Hillary went for the stereotypical show of emotion that we expect from a woman. She cried.

You’ll also notice that her staff didn’t try to explain away her apparent breakdown, as they most certainly would any other gaffe. I think that’s pretty telling.

We’ve all known strong women that could put many of the men we know to shame with their resolve. From what I know of her, I’d group Hillary in with those type of women. Remember, this is the woman that stood stone-faced next to her husband after he was blown by a staffer. So, for Hillary to resort to such bush-league tactics this early is pretty craven, if you ask me. A good political move? Maybe for now, but I think in the long haul, it’s only going to hurt her with undecided voters. I mean, do we want a crier as a president? (Note: this also counts out Mitt Romney, who has cried twice already. Of course, he may have just been leaking transmission fluid or something)

So, while most pundits and pontificates on the cable news networks run around in circles trying to find out why the polling data for the Democrat candidates was so off (a Reuters poll had Obama ahead 42% to Clinton’s 29%), maybe they should look back to that moment, the day right before New Hampshirians (New Hampshire-ites? New Hampshire-egians?) headed to the polls to cast their first-in-the-nation primary votes.