Maybe it's not PC to suggest this, but somehow it smells of women's privilege -- how we are meant, or supposed, to treat women -- and maybe it's ungentlemanly to turn one's back on her? The Hillary campaign is groping for every possible advantage to sway opinion. "But, really, it's not about gender!"

A few weeks ago, if a male candidate got teary-eyed during the New Hampshire primary, I don't think it would have been seen as a "humanizing" quality... or even (as some say) a calculated gesture. It would have been ridiculed and derided as a sign of weakness.

Though, to be fair, during the next debate, when asked about their weaknesses, Edwards did briefly flirt with this strategic "humanizing" approach, getting a little misty and reminding us (again) that his campaign is personal, and sometimes he cares just too damn much.

Regardless... sexism, with its double standards, is alive and well. With all of this talk about cleavage, haircuts, and diamonds/pearls, it's almost enough to turn anyone off. But maybe that's the point.