In the days preceding the New Hampshire primary I was elated. Drudge was reporting how Clinton staffers were looking for other jobs after the Iowa defeat; CNN was reportedly making programming decision based on the fact that Hillary would soon be out; and the money was said to be drying up. Then, despite strong polling to suggest the opposite was about to happen, Hillary won in New Hampshire.

There is but one question. How?

Was it the tear? Was it the fact that New Hampshire allows non-residents to vote in their primary? Or was there something more nefarious afoot? [We are talking about the Clintons after all.] Maybe the answer is all of the above. But for now, let’s talk about the tear.

Whether or not there was more than one tear, a single tear, or no tear at all, I do not know. I’ve tried to watch the clip enough times to conclude, but I just couldn’t torture myself that way. Maybe the Gitmo detainees can be made to figure it out, I don’t care to.

Instead, I’d like to focus on the words that accompanied the tear. She said, “I have so many opportunities for this country.” “I” she says? Not “We,” but “I”?

To the extent the emotion was real, it seems to me to have welled up from the realization that her campaign was on the brink of destruction. While nearing tears for herself, she would have us believe they are tears for her country.

So what are these “opportunities” that she would have in store for us? Is she arrogant enough to think that she is the only person who could enact the kind of policies she would enact. If so, might we question whether or not such policies should be enacted? (Recall 1993’s HillaryCare?) If she is not the only person who can enact her kind of policies, then perhaps she should celebrate the abilities of someone more capable (not to mention more likeable) of achieving the “common good.”

Which brings us to Barack Obama. I would sincerely like to see him win his party’s nomination. Not because I think he would be easier to defeat in the general election than Hillary; I’m not sure that’s true. In fact, I think the negative turn-out Hillary would generate would help the GOP in the House and Senate races as well as the race for the White House.

The reason I would like to see Barack win is because I think we could at least see a fair fight. He would be willing to engage in an argument regarding the role of government. And, God willing, he would lose. There would be no calculated tears. No secret Chinese contributors. No George Soros lurking with his billions around the edges of legality. (At least I hope not.) The selection of Obama could stand as a sound repudiation of Clinton-style politics, which, in and of itself, would be a significant step in bringing the country together.

I have long held the belief that it is the venom in politics that prevents people from truly engaging. Most people reach their threshold of tolerance before they can begin to understand political philosophies as opposed to superficial perceptions of political personalities.

Furthermore, the demonizing of the mere concept of ideology prevents many from ever understanding the ideology of the person for whom they vote. If conventional wisdom says ideology is bad, I contend that it is more dangerous to vote for someone who will try to disguise their ideology or pretends not to have one.

Which, again, brings us back to Barack Obama. For all his talk of a “third way” or rising above the battle that has been fought since the ‘60’s—all of which sounds very good—he has done little to disassociate himself from the creeping Marxism that his party has unwittingly embraced.

We must have a clear understanding, dare I say an ideology, regarding the proper role and reach of government. It is my hope that that is precisely what the elections can teach those willing to learn. Or we can be moved by a tear, motivated by the sound and fury, all of which, of course, signifies nothing.