There was an excellent article by Martin Kettle in yesterday's Guardian where he made some fundamental points about the New Hampshire primary. Namely that there's something strange in everyone focusing on Hillary's supposed tears rather than on what the polls had been saying, with the exception of the few days between the Iowa caucus and NH. That is: Clinton is ahead among Democrats so is more likely to win the bulk of states, where only Democratic votors can cast a ballot.

Pity he hadn't forwarded his piece to others in the same edition of the paper...

Still, there's a big question that isn't being asked about what Americans (and, I suppose, the rest of us) expect in a female president. It strikes me that a lot of the coverage of Hillary emoting focuses on the moment being a truly feminist moment: when being human requires us to not only be strong but also to show that we can suffer.

But I wonder. Isn't this just another instance of a woman being held to different standards to a man? Has anyone asked the same thing of Obama? What would we think of a teary moment from him? It may just be that a return to the halcyon Clintonic days requires a president with a quivering lip, but it may also be that even the more progressive Democratic supporters haven't quite shook off the suspicion that an ambitious woman must be a bitch.

Hopefully not. It pains me to say it, but (electorally speaking) Hillary had better not take too much advice from Bill on these aspects of her presidency (agin which I wouldn't bet). She and Bill should look further afield for inspiration, starting perhaps with a DVD or two.

If she quivers she'll be called weak and if she doesn't she'll be called cold. But - as presidents go - better cold than weak...