Is it possible that women are such creatures of emotion, devoid of analytical capability, eschewing rationality for sentiment, that we would really vote for Hillary Clinton because she cried?

No. No, no, no.

But that was the call after the New Hampshire primary this month. Media outlets and analysts everywhere said it was so: Hillary got a little weepy, women came out in droves to support her, and she topped out over Barack Obama by two percentage points.

Come on. Maybe they liked her healthcare plan.

Yes, mainstream media will comb through election-trail minutiae and cobble together morsels that will be sold as "comprehensive" coverage. We're going to get stories about John Edwards' hair and Obama's hot bathing-suit bod.

And that's OK. I can accept some silliness in an election year, even one as important as this, when the world's on a precipice. As the Irish say, you gotta have a laugh.

But that whole Hillary Teared Up! thing was bad.

First of all, so what?

Secondly, it's the worst of gender stereotypes. Yes, it's only a primary, so if you're going to let mushiness be your guide, better now than in November. Still, I refuse to accept that tens of thousands of women were motivated to choose Clinton because she got a little verklempt.

It's not as asinine as saying she got the female vote by dazzling them with her lemon power suit and shimmering blonde highlights. But it's not far off.

Third, if we're pegging Clinton's female support to a well-timed tear, what of the men who voted for her? Where's that analysis? Are they, for example, more emotionally available than the Obama/Edwards supporters? Should we suss that out or just put a cork in it?

There are lots of reasons anyone would vote for Clinton. How 'bout: