Clear to Me

There's an awful lot that's weird about Ron Fournier's writeup of the Democratic presidential forum, but this is particularly weird:

"I think it's a position that John certainly has taken," she said, drawing laughter from the crowd. It was not clear whether the audience was laughing with her or at her.

I was in the room, and I promise you it was totally clear that the audience (myself included) was laughing with her. I'm genuinely baffled as to how there could be confusion about this: she made a joke and people laughed, including a lot of people who probably won't vote for her. It was, in the moment, pretty funny.

Comments

I strongly disagree with you. I was there also, three rows in front of the candidates. Clearly, we were laughing at her: the incredulity of her answer was the lightning point. It was hard to believe that she blurted words to the effect that Edwards could do whatever he wants; I Hillary have a diametrically opposing view. Her sentiments were unpopular and shocking and that's why the audience was laughing at her.

Posted by Tom Schultz | August 5, 2007 1:51 AM

"Clear to Me"

See, this is why Ezra is an A-Lister and gets invited to the good parties - he's not a shameless Clinton apologist. His report:

Hillary Clinton on Edwards' challenge to stop taking lobbyist money: "I certainly think thats a position Sen, Edwards has taken." Yes, indeed it is. She then says that "I've been in politics for 35-years, and I think it's silly for anyone to think that money impacts my positions." The crowd laughs at her then boos.

Posted by Petey | August 5, 2007 1:56 AM

Petey that was a different instance than the one Fournier and Matt are talking about. And I do think the audience was laughing with her the instance this blogpost refers to. I wasn't there but I was watching the stream and when she said that I laughed, because it was kind of a funny way to deflect the question. I don't even like Hillary very much, although her performance today made me feel less negatively about her.

TS's idea above that when an audience is shocked they burst into laughter doesn't even make sense, IMO.

Posted by Lee | August 5, 2007 2:07 AM

"Petey that was a different instance than the one Fournier and Matt are talking about."

Well, with the plainest reading of Ezra's chronology, the crowd was laughing at her one sentence after the "I think it's a position that John certainly has taken" line. So I think Fournier's account is likely less ridiculous than Matt would first assume.

Disclaimer: I wasn't there, and I haven't seen the video.

-----

"I don't even like Hillary very much, although her performance today made me feel less negatively about her."

Just because Hillary ain't Satan is no reason to feel less negatively about her. In fact, her non-Satanness is the precise reason that she is so dangerous - the Democratic primary electorate isn't going to reject her out of hand, she's going to have to actually be defeated.

-----

And as an aside, when, precisely, did Ben Smith become the journalist with the best understanding of Democratic party politics? I feel as if I missed the moment when he assumed the throne.

Posted by Petey | August 5, 2007 2:16 AM

The video can be seen at TPM or TalkLeft.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/8/4/234351/1122

It's clear from the video that people were laughing WITH her.

At the moment I am planning on voting for the Gore/Clark ticket and Hillary is above Richardson, but her statement was pretty funny.

Posted by jerry | August 5, 2007 2:38 AM

those insidious PARTISAN lobbyists from the League of Conservation Voters and the Nurses (and the Dark Forces of the AFT/UFT aligned with the Nurses) are what's really wrong with America, whereas the lobbyists representing Glaxo Smith Kline and HealthSouth and General Dynamics and Colgate and Lockheed and Aetna and MNBA and US Chamber of Commerce and NMA only want what's best for America.

and Hillary only wants what's best for America, so stop ragging on the Nurses and the Defense Contractors.

Allahu Ahkbar for Ezra Klein

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | August 5, 2007 2:54 AM

I'm surprised, but I guess it's open for interpretation. I watched the stream and thought everyone was -- appropriately -- laughing AT her ridiculous assumption that a response that condescending and Clinton-like would fly in that room. I really don't think it was meant as a joke... She was trying to buy time with a difficult question and thought that would do it. The laughter actually seemed to rattle her a bit. btw, I watched from the stream.

Posted by cms | August 5, 2007 2:59 AM

I'm surprised, but I guess it's open for interpretation. I watched the stream and thought everyone was -- appropriately -- laughing AT her ridiculous assumption that a response that condescending and Clinton-like would fly in that room. I really don't think it was meant as a joke... She was trying to buy time with a difficult question and thought that would do it. The laughter actually seemed to rattle her a bit. btw, I watched from the stream.

Posted by cms | August 5, 2007 3:00 AM

I'm surprised, but I guess it's open for interpretation. I watched the stream and thought everyone was -- appropriately -- laughing AT her ridiculous assumption that a response that condescending and Clinton-like would fly in that room. I really don't think it was meant as a joke... She was trying to buy time with a difficult question and thought that would do it. The laughter actually seemed to rattle her a bit.

Posted by cms | August 5, 2007 3:00 AM

Isn't that interesting? It seems like there really might have been two widely held interpretations of the laughter in the audience, one derisive, one jovial. For all we know, half the audience thought what she said was stupid, the other funny, and each person in the room thought everyone else laughing shared his opinion.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 5, 2007 3:04 AM

What I don't get is the last part of Fournier's piece, where he says:

"One thing most bloggers have in common — regardless of their political leanings — is an intense frustration with the political establishment. And so it was a convention dripping in irony when liberal bloggers welcomed the living symbols of the Democratic status quo — seven presidential candidates."

So what does this mean? That a person running for president is by definition a part of the status quo? That doesn't make sense to me. It almost seems as if he is saying here that bloggers shouldn't have anything at all to do with political candidates, because of how totally disillusioned they are with the establishment. Maybe he's trying to imply something similar to MY's Gate Crashers post, but if he is, it's a highly ineffectual way of going about it.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | August 5, 2007 3:15 AM

Was Dennis Kucinich at YearlyKos? Why isn't he more popular among liberal Dems?

Kucinich is smart, articulate, and liberal, and he had the politically correct positions on Iraq and other issues long before most other candidates. Why no love?

Posted by Fred | August 5, 2007 3:19 AM

Both the early versions and the later versions of Ron Fournier's take on this was filled with his Republican slant. In the first take he threw digs at liberal bloggers and Democratic candidates appeasing them, in the second he went after Hillary. When will Pickler and Fournier be removed from covering the politics beat with their Republican agenda?

Posted by Gary Denton | August 5, 2007 6:05 AM

Just because Hillary ain't Satan is no reason to feel less negatively about her. In fact, her non-Satanness is the precise reason that she is so dangerous - the Democratic primary electorate isn't going to reject her out of hand, she's going to have to actually be defeated. Petey's got a point of view and Petey's right.

The waiver of the 4th Amendmendment passed today by the House and the Senate on Thursday makes me not care if she's Satan or not. Maybe we can't take 4 more years of Bush, but I am dubious that Clinton or Obama would be different in any important way. I'm so distraught over this give away of the republic that I am veering toward Leninism. The democrats are terrible. I know, someone will ask What about the Court" "What about the environment". Let me tell you something: If the democrats couldn't pass a bill that the DNI wrote because a little ninny said he would bring him back them back from recess, they are worthless. They must be defeated.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | August 5, 2007 7:00 AM

"I am dubious that Clinton or Obama would be different in any important way."

Of course they'd be different in a multitude of important ways. When I say Hillary ain't Satan, I mean it. She'd be able to do a very limited clean-up of Bushism. And that's not nothing.

But if you want to eradicate the madness in a more than limited way, you're going to have the bash the other side's head in at the ballot box in the name of progressivism until they evolve. And a Hillary Clinton led party is never going to be able to do that.

And as far as the surveillance legislation goes, if you look at the Dems who broke ranks to pass the surveillance legislation, they're almost all Blue Dogs. Put John Edwards at the head of the party, win some elections with a broad geographical mandate, and you'll show the Blue Dogs a path to striking a more progressive posture without asking them to sacrifice their seats.

Posted by Petey | August 5, 2007 7:58 AM

Thanks for your great reporting on yearlykos, Matt. Much better than the coverage at dkos, itself. You were funny-as-hell in that interview, btw.

Cheers

Posted by sofia | August 5, 2007 9:08 AM

Just watched the video. Seems to me her first remark may have been along the lines of "Now tell us what you really think" when someone has just made a very powerful statement--in this case an ironic but generally friendly observation about how strongly Edwards opposes taking lobbyist money.

Alternatively, it could have been a self-deprecating way of saying, "Ugh, that's a really tough question that I'd rather not have to answer because you aren't going to like what I say," i.e., a humorously transparent attempt to stall.

Either way, Obama appears to have understood it to be humorous; he's laughing along with the audience, which he probably would not have done had he thought they were laughing at her.

When she goes on to actually answer the question, however, the audience is obviously (and justifiably, IMHO) laughing at her.

Posted by Swift Loris | August 5, 2007 9:53 AM

My initial reaction (watching the video) was that people were laughing at her. But, I guess that's why 'Rashomon' still holds up today.

Posted by AJ | August 5, 2007 9:59 AM

Still no word yet if that Alvy Gore and his risky tax scheme are running (that was Bush with the risky tax scheme you moron Linus; Alvy Gore had the lock box where you put stuff for safe keeping).

Posted by Linus | August 5, 2007 10:32 AM