Kill Me
No joke: Hillary Clinton’s laugh is now being analyzed, scrutinized and, yes, mocked as if it were a sound barrier on her glide path to the Democratic presidential nomination: Is it real? Is it fake? Is it a diabolically clever attempt to portray her as a human being?
“Depending on who you ask,” ABC’s Kate Snow said on “Good Morning America,” “Hillary Clinton is either having a really good time out on the campaign trail, or she’s the master of a shrewd political skill disarming her critics with the gleam in her eye and a roar straight from the belly.”
Fox’s Sean Hannity said Clinton’s “maniacal laughing fits on ‘Fox News Sunday’ have sparked speculation that she is trying to get voters to believe that she’s not the cold, calculating candidate that the press has often characterized her as.”
On MSNBC’s “Hardball,” author Drew Westen likened the spectacle to the infamous Howard Dean scream, saying: “I think it can get blown out of proportion. It does sound like a defensive laugh.”
We need to bring back public shamings in this country. Beltway pundits who think we should elect leaders based upon the way they laugh will be the first to get locked up in the stocks.
Continuing:
The subtext here is that the media have collectively decided that the wife of the 42nd president is the inevitable nominee and a good bet to become the 44th Oval Office occupant. Lacking much of a horse race, since Clinton has maintained a 20-point national lead over Barack Obama all year, journalists are resorting to a classic general-election question: Are Americans ready to have this woman in their living rooms every night for four years? Are they comfortable with her personality? Do they like her voice?
Plus, examining her personality quirks is more fun than deconstructing her stance on Iraq.
Yes, analyzing Hillary’s laugh is of greater importance that discussing our country’s biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.
Unfortunately, the media can’t take all of the blame for being as stupid as they are, since their viewers actually tolerate this sort of nonsense. Le sigh.
Well, when compared to Great Lord Bush’s mellifluous chortle, Hillary’s laugh does seem a bit … gauche, shall we say? And therefore somewhat French in nature?
We should have a candidate debate where we just film them watching Who’s Line is it Anyway? and have a panel of judges rating their laughs. If any of them do laugh, that is.
“…she is trying to get voters to believe that she’s not the cold, calculating candidate that the press* has often characterized her as…”
* “By which I mean contemptible wannabe-fascist scum like me, Sean Hannity.”
kiki- sadly, it ain’t just Hannity. Our super-kewl “press corps” just lurves playing amateur psychologists and analyzing candidates’ deepest hidden motivations. They are truly some of the stupidest human beings the planet has ever seen.
Haven’t we been down this road before? Oh, yeah.
See “audible sighs” by Gore, Al,
Taibbi this week:
…the campaign is basically a rolling bourgeois television entertainment that has as one of its chief purposes the projection of a weirdly fictional vision of American political reality — clean, healthy, positively engaged, and so bereft of real problems that it can afford to choose leaders on the strength of such questions as who looks better in a duck-hunting costume, or who can more charmingly engage an MSNBC morning anchor in a discussion about “traditional values” while squeezing a cow’s teat in Wisconsin via a 5 a.m. satellite feed.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/64109/?page=entire
Well, quite – that’s why I didn’t write “By which I mean me, Sean Hannity, contemptible wannabe-fascist scum”, but instead wrote “contemptible wannabe-fascist scum like me, Sean Hannity”. As you point out, the category implied here is a depressingly crowded one.
They are truly some of the stupidest human beings the planet has ever seen.
Coveirng “news” about sighs, cleavage, haircuts and laughs is just so much easier for them than covering something like healthcare policy.
I politely disagree: the Cheney Administration’s Debacle in the Desert will prove to be a far greater foreign policy disaster than Viet Nam. When we left Viet Nam, it was still (and is still) a viable, functioning country and it’s major impact on it’s neighbors was to remove Pol Pot from power, hardly a bad thing. Iraq will be a nonnation in a political vegetative state for years to come and will have only malign effects on the entire Middle East.
…Although I don’t suppose all the press have quite such a profound jackboot fetish as Ol’ Meathead himself; most of ’em are just incredibly stupid, or smart enough only to know which side their bread is buttered.
And OT, after the red-assing Jon Stewart gave Chris Matthews last night, will any of these pompous, brain-dead pundits ever again dare appear on The Daily Show?
OT, but the jets are flying out of our local ANG base again. The ones that are tasked with anti-anti-aircraft missions.
Like the anti-aircraft wepons we’d need to take out to attack Iran.
Just sayin’.
Oh, and BTW, I’ve never actually heard Sen. Clinton laugh.
I suppose that makes me An Uninformed Citizen or something.
Sweet Jeebus, is there anything to laugh about?
I suppose that makes me An Uninformed Citizen or something.
Don’t worry. The media is informed so you don’t have to be.
Christ, that’s “anti-aircraft WEAPONS” in my post at 16:11.
Need. More. Coffee.
The media is UNinformed so you don’t have to be.
Fixed your typo, there.
Kurtz:
For some of our wingnut friends, bwah-ha-ha isn’t a strategy. It’s a way of life.
You say, “In the stocks”, I say find them real jobs. Either way is fine with me. I wonder if the public humiliation thing would work though? I mean, every day these idiots are out there saying crazy, off-the-wall things, with a straight face. I think they have no shame; they certainly have no sense of decency.
There are burgers out there to flip, ditches to dig, trash to pick up, crops to pick, and roads to repair – I think these “journalists” and “pundits” should be out there, supporting the America they claim to love by performing these jobs. They collectively owe the rest of us something like 55-odd years of real public service.
Can anyone point me in the direction of youtube video of the Matthews smack down? My google-fu is weak today.
I’ve seen calculators that were less calculating than Hilary Clinton’s laugh!
thelogos: Try this.
Note to Political Journalists: This is a partial list of other things more fun than deconstructing Hillary’s stance on Iraq but also completely irrelevant to your completing the job you were hired to do:
Wii boxing, windsurfing, 3 martini lunches, spanking the monkey, navel gazing, reading a novel, laughing at Ann Althouse…
thelogos, I think the smackdown is up at http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/
The real thing about Hillary though, is you have to remember what she was laughing at. I saw a montage of Hillary on Sunday morning talk shows, laughing in response to these really inane Hillary bashing questions (can’t find the link anywhere — I think it was September 23rd. Perhaps she made a decision that she needed to point out the absurdity of those types of questions by laughing at them. She was not laughing at something genuinely humorous — she was laughing to put the question in its place.
Looks like they’ve found the new Dean Scream.
This is why I’ve been utterly ignoring campaign news, except for what manages to filter through into my consciousness anyway.
“Yes, yes, I know,” said the man wearily. “This has happened several other Saturday evenings in the past month. That young girl, sir, was my daughter. She was killed in an automobile accident at that intersection where you saw her almost two years ago,” and as he spoke, Hillary Clinton’s eerie laugh could be heard faintly in the distance…
This is indeed a goofy thing for people to fixate on, but Hil kinda brought it on herself in a way. That first laugh at that oafish question by Wallace about her being a divisive figure-that one was well deserved. However, it’s kinda getting a bit canned-someone on the campaign told her people like her laugh, and now she’s been overdoing it a bit-most notably at the last Dem debate after Gravel nailed her on her Lieberman-Kyl vote.
So, here’s some questions the media has seen fit to ask about recent Democratic candidates:
– Is Hillary Clinton’s laugh too phony?
– Does Howard Dean’s public display of emotion indicate that he is psychotic?
– Did Al Gore exaggerate his role in a long-forgotten hack novel?
– How will John Kerry respond to a series of completely fabricated charges?
– Didn’t Michael Dukakis look silly wearing that big hat?
Meanwhile, here’s some questions the media has not seen fit to ask about recent Republican candidates:
– How many pointless, unjustified, bloody wars will George W. Bush involve us in?
– Does Ronald Reagan’s constant lying about everything make him untrustworthy?
– Why would anyone vote for George W. Bush after he already stole one election?
– Isn’t it kind of unseemly how Rudy Giuliani constantly exploits the death of his fellow New Yorkers to raise money?
– Is George W. Bush’s utter contempt for American values confined solely to him and his cabinet, or does it apply to the whole Republican Party?
Darn liberal media bias!
So her laugh is a bit canned. So what? I guess the swipes at her hair, clothes, cleavage, marriage, and any other meaningless blip that shows up on the sexist clods’ radar didn’t take, huh? And once her laugh has lost its amusement value for the ADD-afflicted media jagoffs, then what? What’ll be left? Perhaps then we’ll finally be down to the gist of it, which is, of course, that she’s teh WOMAN!!! OMG NO!!!11!!!!! Are we READY for THAT?!!!!11! No country in the whole history of the whole WORLD has ever had a WOMAN for a leader!!1!!!11!!!1!1!!!1!
(Hey, how about her makeup?! And those shoes!)
Oh, fer the love of…
Bush is a bumbling illiterate idiot with a fake drawl and an inability to speak his native tongue. He’s literally unbearable to listen to.
And they want to kick Ms. Clinton for her laugh? Are you fucking kidding me? Do they really think they want to go down that path with bush, giuliani and freddy of hollywood?
Idiots, the lot of ’em…
mikey
Yeah, Chris Mattews got pwned!
I could hardly believe it when Jon said, There’s nothing in this book about being good.
And Matthews said, That’s already been written. It’s called the Bible.
And Jon said, Your book is more like The Prince.
And Matthews said, It’s better than The Prince.
I suspect Matthews thought Jon was talking about The Little Prince.
Truly, truly, truly, Matthews is a small-minded, detestable, stupid person.
Speaking of the Daily Show, was it okay when they took a look at Hillary’s laughter? (Last week, they aired a montage of laughter at inappropriate moments, and laughing sound-bites that were eerily similar.)
I’m not concern-trolling, I’m genuinely curious. My initial reaction to it wasn’t defensive; on the other hand, when I realized that the regular news shows were attempting to use Clinton’s laughter as some kind of bellwether for what kind of candidate she is, I took a second look, and I’m not as comfortable as I was. Thoughts?
Speaking of the Daily Show, was it okay when they took a look at Hillary’s laughter?
It’s a comedy show. They’re allowed to laugh at everybody.
It’s only inappropriate when political reporters start acting like a comedy show.
Daily Show = Political Satire and Mocking of Politicians
Media = Beyond Political Satire and Selective Mocking/Enabling of Politicians
One should be poking holes in the persona for humorous effect.
The other should be poking holes in the content of the campaign, which they are entirely uninterested in doing. So they fail in their very important job and they aren’t as funny as the Daily Show, a humor show.
We’re an infantile country.
Robert- Jon Stewart’s job is to make us laugh.
The media’s job is to keep us informed about what our government is doing.
Jon Stewart can make us laugh by mocking Hillary’s bwah-ha’s. The media cannot keep us informed about government activity by doing the same. The difference in their respective mission statements lets us know what behavior is appropriate for each of them.
As Jon Stewart said: You’re on CNN. My… The show that leads in to me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you?
Really Chris Matthews? If you listen to people they will like you?? WOW! Now that’s some deep-cutting insight into life.
Really Chris Matthews? If you listen to people they will like you?? WOW! Now that’s some deep-cutting insight into life.
I don’t know. The more I listen to Matthews, the LESS I like him. But perhaps I’m a special case.
Chris Matthews telling others to listen to what people have to say? Man, that’s rich.
Tweety can’t keep his own big gaping yap shut for two seconds. He’s got the worst case of screaming-head shout-down diarrhea-of-the-mouth I ever saw.
He even kept trying to yell Jon Stewart down. He knew he got his ass kicked, but he was too dim to understand why.
What the hell does a “defensive laugh” sound like? Or a calculated one? It’s a all in the mind of the listener.
I do think Matthews’s laugh on TDS was denensive, though. It must have been, since he was getting his ass handed to him. It’s on YouTube, BTW,
What Jon Stewart did to Chris Mathews and his stupid book – that recommends taking a Machiavellian approach in life – was beautiful. I could watch that over and over.
Ridiculing Hillary’s laugh is what can be expected from the mediocre media and Republicans who defend President Asshole’s repeated gaffes. Childrens do learn and Americans put food on their families, or didn’t you know that?
Are Americans ready to have this woman in their living rooms every night for four years?
This just reminds me that Bush is a guy you love to have a beer with at a BBQ, however, he has turned out to be the frat boy who is still attempting kegstands and leaving dip-juice in snapple bottles on windowsills all over your house at 4am, long after party has ended.
Hillary would be more like that uptight hippie girl who has never worn patchouli, drinks good coffee, and who is also the wife of that guy you used to know who totally never comes by anymore.
Speaking of the Daily Show, was it okay when they took a look at Hillary’s laughter?
Sadly, Robert needs to be reminded TDS is comedy.
It’s funny, I was just thinking this morning that the prospect of having Fred Thompson come into my living room every night for four years would cause me to finally hurl my T.V. out the window.*
That smackdown of Tweety was absolutely lovely. I was clapping and cheering along with the audience. My neighbors probably think I was having some sort of fit, but they should be used to me by now.
*I would actually dispose of said T.V. in a less picturesque, environmentally responsible manner.
Maybe it is because of my belief that the Democrats are bad and the Republicans worse, but I never have understood my fellow citizen’s desire to “personalize” politicians, and have vicarious fantasy relationships with them. Who gives a shit what they look like, or what their laugh sounds like fer fuck’s sake?
I want politicians to make good policy, keep their corruption under control, sound pretty good on TV, and not look terrible. And that’s asking a lot nowadays.
That was one of the best interviews Jon Stewart has been a party to. I loved the moment when Matthews finally figured out that Stewart wasn’t going to kiss his self-important, sycophantic ass. And Stewart just laughs and laughs in his face.
This is totally off topic, but I thought people might be interested. Remember the National Vanguard ad that was posted here a few weeks ago? The group’s founder, Kevin Alfred Strom, is currently on trial for attempting to sexually entice a minor and for intimidating a witness. The witness in question is his wife. The trial began yesterday:
From Hatewatch.
The entire media apparatus is taking its lead from a comedy show! What’s next the international implications of the 30 Rock season premeire?
“Bush is a bumbling illiterate idiot with a fake drawl and an inability to speak his native tongue. He’s literally unbearable to listen to.
And they want to kick Ms. Clinton for her laugh?”
Yes. It’s called being FAIR and BALANCED. If they don’t do it, Rush will call them mean things.
I just watched the Matthews clip. My only disappointment is that the interview wasn’t longer; it would have been interesting to see if Jon could puncture Matthews’ arrogant cluelessness.
The encounter between Jon and Carlson Tucker on whichever ridiculous he-said/she-said cable show did cross my mind, when I was writing my earlier comment. The critical difference between the Daily Show and, say, Fox and Friends is that the mainstream news is attempting to make Hillary Clinton into a figure of levity for the electorate, whereas on TDS everyone is a figure of levity.
I get the difference, I really do, and I’m not mad at the Daily Show. But it got me thinking: at what point might the Daily Show’s license end? They don’t do “serious” journalism, but they’re now a primary source of news for my demographic (18-24), which means that they are now inextricably a part of the same media narrative they’re rebelling against.
In that light, I think it’s important to give it the same critical eye we use for the rest of the news. Rather than just accepting that making fun of Hillary is okay for Jon Stewart but not for Sean Hannity, I’d like to know why it’s okay–and because I generally like and respect the community here, I was wondering what other people thought about it.
The whole “Bush-is-a-dumb-motherfucker-who-can’t-speak-right” is just the other side of this coin, anything to keep the focus of the public away from actual policies, plus it makes it seem as though the media is being critical towards a deeply unpopular president. In Saddam’s Iraq one of his sons ran the fake opposition.
MzNicky, I thought it was a great tactic…at first.
Isn’t it amazing how many people toss this argument out for not having Hil? Angela Merkel, anyone? Bhutto? Meir? Thatcher? I’ve even had to remind my own damn mother that women have run countries. The brainwashing runs deep.
The Strom story. Oh, my. Gavin, you see what bad photoshoppery will lead to?
Bhutto? Meir? Thatcher?
Well…
The Matthews interview was funny, ut i dont see the defensive laugh angle. Matthews was laughing when I and everyone else in the audience was also laughing, probably because JS is actually pretty funny. Hillary has been laughing at serious questions, and/or at odd times where there is no humor. If you listen to her laugh it sounds exactly the same every time, there is no deviance or breaks for breath, out of sync with previous laughter. I almost believe tha she is in fact a robot. Can’t WE laugh at her? I know I do.
John Witherspoon: Hmmm. You seem to have spent quite a bit of time analyzing HRC’s laugh. Quite a bit of time indeed. No life, huh?
And I’m sure Jon Stewart’s life will now have meaning, now that you have opined that he is “actually pretty funny.” Guess what, pal — most of the world has known that for about, what, six, seven years now?
I almost believe that you are in fact a robot. Therefore, I laugh at you, sir! Ha ha!
Can’t WE laugh at her? I know I do.
Only until she becomes president. Then the black helicoptors come out and joke’s over bitches.
Hillary has been laughing at serious questions, and/or at odd times where there is no humor.
Oh come now. Chris Matthews asked her why she and her husband are so hyper-partisan. I’m sorry, but that’s funny.
Oops. Wallace, I meant Chris Wallace.
From the Jon Stewart/Tweety piece:
Tweety: You’re afraid of something in my book.
Jon: There IS something in this book I fear. Like fascism.
………..
Oh, sweet clown gods, I love that man!
Oddly, i have used public shaming of right wingers for several years and it really pisses them off to have their opponents call them on it. for some reason starting a sentence with “you ought to be ashamed of yourself for…” sets them off like a defensive kid being caught in his aunt’s cookie jar.
maybe bill bennett was right.
[…] And Sadly, No! gets it right, AND funny! […]
“But Chris, this is a recipe for sadness.”
It completely turned the guy into a blabbering mess. Brilliant.
Crooks and Liars has video of the Stewart-Mathews interview.
Chris Mathews’ laugh: pervy
Jon Stewart’s laugh: adorable
Leaving aside the obvious rationale for using the word “lynching,” what exactly was “high-tech” about Anita Hill saying, “hey, this guy is a real asshole”?
Woopsie. Wrong thread.
Yeah, Jon tore Tweety a new one. And he’s really overly-nice to guests.
Sure, the current batch of Republican are authoritarian nutjobs who think that we should carpet nuke countries that don’t fall in lock step and arrest dissenters for having the gall to speak out, but the Democrats have expensive haircuts.
Would you like to know MORE?
“And they wanyt to kick Ms. Clinton for her laugh? Are you fucking kidding me? Do they really think they want to go down that path with bush, giuliani and freddy of hollywood?”
Mikey, you live in an America where the media holds everyone to the same standards. I live in an America where a Rhodes Scholar, with many years of experience governing at the Federal level, was treated as fashionista airhead, whilst a drunken frat-house playboy became “a reformer with results.” I live in an America where your fellow soldier in Viet Nam was called a traitor, while the guy who refused combat duty became Mr. Manly Codpiece Fighter Jock, SIR!! I really, really, really want to live in your America, but I’m stuck in mine. Can you get me safe passage? Please?