It's the video that shook up voters in New Hampshire — and political strategists across the nation:

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, on the brink of tears in a cafe on Tuesday.

The near-tearful interview stirred that age-old — and outdated, in my opinion — debate: Are women "man" enough to run this country?

As an editorial in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution pointed out yesterday, 20 years ago, it didn't fly. When Rep. Pat Schroeder cried after pulling out of the presidential race, critics argued she — and women everywhere — weren't "tough" enough for the White House.

But men? Different story.

Men who cry are often viewed as sensitive, compassionate, real. But women who cry are weak and emotionally unstable — utterly unfit to lead anything, let alone the Free World.

My, how things have changed!

That interview showed a more human side of Clinton, one that may have prompted the majority of women over 45 to vote for her over front-runner Barack Obama.

As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd put it:

There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.

Of course, critics are challenging the authenticity of Clinton's emotional state, claiming that this was staged as a last-ditch attempt to earn the sympathy of undecided voters.

Maybe. But it worked. So what does that say about the American public?