From cleavage to "cackle"? Media find new focus in coverage of Hillary Clinton

[antiimperialist]

Wed, Oct 3, 2007 9:29pm ET
Media Matters for America

Following her appearance on all five Sunday political talk shows on September 23 -- NBC's Meet the Press, CBS' Face the Nation, ABC's This Week, Fox News Sunday and CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer -- political reporters and other media personalities have seized on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) laugh as a new subject of attention. In his October 2 column -- headlined "Chucklegate" -- Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz contended that "Jon Stewart is now setting the agenda for presidential campaign coverage," suggesting that the media flap over Clinton's laughter began with a September 25 segment on Comedy Central's The Daily Show. Similarly, Kurtz stated in his column in the October 3 print edition of The Washington Post similarly that "Jon Stewart, setting the pace for political journalism, kicked things off last week by assembling a grab bag of giggling and guffawing when the senator appeared on all five Sunday talk shows." In fact, before the Daily Show segment aired, audio and video clips of Clinton's laughter had already been highlighted by the Republican National Committee, the Drudge Report, and the radio shows of conservatives Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, as well as such cable news programs as MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor.

Starting with reports in The New York Times and the Politico, and progressing to many other outlets, commentators speculated about whether Clinton's laughter is evidence of her "calculating" nature, with some characterizing her laugh as a "cackle" -- defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "the sound made by a hen after laying an egg."

Read more: http://mediamatters.org/items/200710040003?f=h_latest

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. It's Hillary vs Britney

for publicity!:evilgrin:

[patrice]

2. I'm not a supporter, but it isn't a "cackle".

That's not a fair characterization.

It IS somewhat calculated in it's timing, but the sound is really just simply that of a "laugh".

[applegrove]

26. Yup. It is in no way a cackle.

[tridim]

3. Who will be the first to mention her vagina?

You know it's coming.

[jgraz]

7. Oh, very poor choice of words there

:hide:

[jgraz]

4. Men cackle. Deal with it.

Not every slight of Hillary is a misogynist outrage. Characterizing her laugh as a cackle is 100% appropriate and devastatingly accurate. This is obviously a practiced, staged laugh she's pulled out in an effort to warm up her image, and it's having the reverse effect.

But don't take my word for it. Listen for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPcqy0pvdsI

[Frances]

5. I think your post sounded like a cackle

Deal with it.

[jgraz]

6. I find that remark horribly sexist.

:P

[Frances]

8. My point.

[jgraz]

9. See that was something we earth people call sarcasm

You can look that up once you're finished with "cackle".

[BB1]

11. it's only a cackle

if she's a witch, insn't it?

[JTFrog]

12. Not if you read

a dictionary. There usually isn't any mention of witch in the definitions:

1. to utter a shrill, broken sound or cry, as of a hen.
2. to laugh in a shrill, broken manner.
3. to chatter noisily; prattle.

Nothing really sexist in the definition either except that hens are female birds. Personally I think we could have gone with any of the following: chortle, crow, hee-haw, sniggle, titter, twitter. Whatever you call it, it's contrived, it's self-indulgent and it's as genuine as all three of her positions on any issue.

[daninthemoon]

10. Ok, what would be the acceptable, non-sexist,politically correct

term for that nerve jangling staged laugh she has decided to try? We can call it whatever you like, but it's a major distraction, and if a male candidate was doing it, it would be just as bad, and could be aptly called a cackle.

[Frances]

13. You mean like all of the pundits focusing on Al Gore's sighs?

Weren't we fortunate that pundits alerted us to that horrible sighing of Gore's? And that they told us Gore was wooden--and phony (remember how he lied about inventing the internet and how he got the name of the man he flew to Texas with to observe storm damage and on and on?

If the pundits hadn't emphasized Gore's sighing and wooden phoniness, we would have missed out on the wonderful Bush years.

Now, that's really sarcasm.

Those people who join the right wing pundits in Swift boating Hillary on stupid things should realize that they are aiding and abetting the Republicans.

If Hillary doesn't get the nomination (and it's way too early to say she has it in the bag), then the pundits will start swift-boating whichever Dem does get the nomination.

Lots of Dems will either defend the pundits or get defensive about our nominee. Meanwhile the Repub candidate will be laughing at us, just like Bush and Rove did.

[yellowcanine]

14. Well put. And Hillary Clinton has a belly laugh. I heard it long before she ran for President. It

is part of her persona. Whether it is defensive or contrived - hard to tell, isn't it? But it appears to be something she has had for a while that would argue against the contrived part. One thing for sure - It has nothing to do with what kind of President she would be, any more than Al Gore's "sighs". Focusing on this is playing into the hand of the swift boating Republicans.

[daninthemoon]

15. I noticed Hil's cackle on those shows, and was immediately bothered

by it's staged phoniness, just like ghouliani's phone call, and bushler's aircraft carrier landing suit. Things that blatantly stupid don't need to be pointed out by pundits, they're there for all to see.

[FiveGoodMen]

17. Sighing when your opponent says something stupid or uninformed

is a WHOLE lot different from laughing when asked why you gave more power to a lying war criminal!

[Frances]

18. I'm curious

What do you do when someone asks you a ridiculous question?

[FiveGoodMen]

21. Depends on the question. What ridiculous question are you referring to?

[Frances]

27. I meant any question that you personally find absurd

[FiveGoodMen]

30. My problem is that she laughed at a question about her support for the war.

And that should not have been a laughing matter.

If she's laughed at ridiculous questions, that's fine, but they're not all ridiculous.

She also ought to see by now that she's being branded with that laugh and she needs to cut it out.

[Frances]

31. Every Dem candidate gets branded with something by the MSM

For example,

Bill Clinton: Slick Willie
Al Gore: Sighs, Liar (invented the internet, etc.), Wooden
John Kerry: Fake hero (remember the bandaids at the Republican National Convention?)
John Edwards: Fag (remember how Ann Coulter and Maureen Dowd droned on and on about his hair?)

If we Dems support these attacks that are based on intangibles, then we shift the conversation away from things like

Torture
Corruption
Competence

If you are against Hillary's position on the war, argue against that position. Or even better, argue FOR the position of your favorite candidate.

[FiveGoodMen]

32. Laughing at a serious question IS inappropriate. Pointing it out is not.

Of course the M$M will go after the Dem candidate. They'll lie, spin, badger, etc, etc, etc. But when the candidate really isn't doing what they should, that's much worse.

And that's why she shouldn't be our candidate. There's still time...

[Frances]

33. I am not arguing with you about whether Hillary is right or wrong

about the war. I think she should not have voted the way she did way back when. (I was against her vote then too.

My argument is that Dems should focus on the candidate's positions, not personal quirks.

I happen to believe that if more people had stood up to the MSM when they went after Gore's quirks, Gore would have won by enough votes that Bush would not have been able to cheat his way to the presidency.

And I believe that if more people had joined Max Cleland in defense of Kerry's character that Kerry would be in the White House now.

[FiveGoodMen]

34. The question comes down to: is this just some quirk of hers, or is it a technique

that she's employing to get out of answering questions?

If it's really a quirk, then let's move on, but...

If it's like RW pundits' smug, ad hominem attacks in lieu of real responses, then it's important.

I could certainly be wrong, but I don't think she's always responded to questions this way. I think she's trying it on.

[Frances]

35. I appreciate the fact that we are both trying to discuss

this issue in a reasonable manner.

I think the source of our difference may be that you are looking at trees while I am looking at the forest.

I am focused on getting a Dem in the White House.

I remember arguing with friends in 2000 who refused to vote for Gore for various reasons. I knew in my bones that Bush would be a disaster, but my friends were focused on what I considered relatively minor flaws, or at least flaws that were not as serious as the flaws Bush has.

So, I don't want the conversation to be about Hillary or any other Dem's flaws. I want the conversation to be about how the Dems, even the less-than-perfect ones, are better than any Repub who passes the right wing's primary system.

[FiveGoodMen]

36. We need a really good Dem, though.

If you're out debating with the general public (R's and undecideds among them), then I think your approach makes sense: Convince them that the republican party is entirely corrupt and needs to be replaced by anyone who can oust them.

But we need a real change very badly. We need a really good Dem! So here, where everyone is already against the pukes, there's no point in reminding us that the other party is awful. How can we forget?

Here, we need to do all we can to filter out the DINO's -- that's what primaries are for, and those haven't been held, yet -- before we wind up voting for the lesser of two evils in Nov '08.

And on the matter of those who say they won't vote for Hillary, those comments are worth making.

Many of us will hold our noses if we have to and vote D no matter what because...we really do know that you're right about getting rid of the R's. But many of us will hate it and some really won't vote for a particular candidate (e.g. Hillary) and the Dem leadership really needs to know that. They think they can count on us no matter what, but suppose they're wrong -- then they'd better decide whether they want to lose or to back someone that the base likes!

Similarly, with Congress, I think it's a bad idea to tell them we're behind them regardless of their statements and actions. We're essentially telling them to appease the right whenever we do that.

So again, my view: In the larger world, R's are evil (certainly true!) and D's are the only hope. But between us Dem's, some D's might be a whole lot better than others and it really matters.

[Frances]

37. Good point

For example, I no longer live in Maryland, but I keep up with Maryland politics. A certain Dem representative from Prince George's County thought he was in for life; he cast some votes I don't approve of. In 2006, he nearly lost to a challenger in the Dem primary. I supported his challenger and hope that she defeats him in 2008. (I think Kos has written about this seat.)

As for the presidential candidates I try not to get overly emotional because I know I will vote for whoever wins the Dem primary. But I admire those people who go out and do their best for the candidate that they think represents their ideals. And I enjoy reading about the positive attributes of the candidates that DUers favor.

[katty]

16. Hillary does cackle, she'd make a great halloween witch

[Frances]

19. I don't think any DUer should be calling any

Democratic candidate a witch. But your post does prove the point that the word cackle does connotate a witch.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

20. and perhaps you should start your name with a "C" n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

22. Pot? Kettle.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

23. Stick with cackles, cleavage, sighs, haircuts and

other inane bullshit if that's your preference. Carry on.

[FiveGoodMen]

24. Do you just hurl unintentionally ironic insults, or do you ever make a point?

[SaveOurDemocracy]

25. My point is this ...

...There is a cadre of extremely prolific daily posters on DU who latch onto asinine MSM meme and RW talking points and regurgitate them at every opportunity. They are vindictive, destructive, and incredibly transparent.

[Frances]

28. I agree

But I think every group has those kind of people.

I think those tactics are for losers; I prefer to think like a winner.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

29. ... I like your thinkin' ;o)