A friend who knows him well was swearing to me the other day that Patrick Healy is a really great guy, so I'll defer to the judgment of other on that, but does the world really need closer scrutiny of Hillary Clinton's laugh?
« Contractors and Counterinsurgency | Main | Tactical Voting »
Cackling
30 Sep 2007 12:41 pm
Comments (25)
now seems like a good time to bring this up...
if anyone would like a way to filter-out the comments of specific trolls, i've written a GreaseMonkey script that can help.
Well while jumping on the bandwagon ready to defend Hillary from anyone that would mock her for her laugh, I hope you will skewer Jon Stewart
In this case, if her laughter is perceived as phony and forced, it goes straight to the very liberal concern that Hillary is a fence sitting, pandering, corporate candidate.
Whoops, horrible html fu just then.
Here's Jon Stewart's ripping on Clinton's laugh.
Eaten in the HTML disaster above is that Stephanie Miller was also ripping on Hillary for her laugh.
This time I'll use preview.
"A friend who knows him well was swearing to me the other day that Patrick Healy is a really great guy"
This nonsense reinforces the notion found here that you are too buddy buddy with the type of people who make American political discourse the disaster that it is to maintain good judgment. People are saying that you'll end up the next Tom Friedman. I don't agree, but reading your hedge about Healy, I'm not sure.
If Patrick Healy were, in fact, such a great guy, he wouldn't write crap like that. It doesn't much matter what his private feelings are, or how nice he is, if his work product seems designed to guarantee that our discourse remains stupid and that we elect Republicans to national office, he's not a good guy.
Dear God, I'm no huge fan of the Clintons, but I don't recall any politician being nitpicked within an inch of their life (well, maybe Al Gore, or John Kerry, or Bill Clinton).
I guess her laugh just doesn't "ring true", ..., and maybe her farts don't smell of baby's breath and lavender.
No fan of Healy here, and ordinarily I would have a problem with this kind of "reporting," but in this case, I'm not sure. The laugh -- its timing and extended nature -- really borders on inappropriate. I know if a job candidate laughed like that in response to a question, he/she would not likely be hired.
I understand that HRC will be asked lots of stupid, even insulting, questions. I think a smile -- and a look of amusement-- might work better from here on out.
Get used to it. This is precisely the treatment any serious Democrat will have to endure to win this election. Haircuts, houses, laughs, is he black enough, etc. etc. The Dems need to be ready for this nonsense and prepared to hit back, hard, at the reporters spewing it.
And by the way, it does not matter one whit if Healy is "a really great guy." I could care less, one way or the other. I don't intend to invite him over for dinner but I will have to read what he writes. And based on this story, he is an ass.
Thanks for link to Jon Stewart. Missed that show and that segment was hysterical! But I don't recall Jon Stewart claiming he was a "legitimate" journalist and his show is precisely the forum where I'd expect someone to mock a politician’s awkward mannerisms.
I thought Jon Stewart skewered her perfectly and in the proper venue. This is the type of thing I expect late night talk show comics to make fun (and deservedly so - she looked silly).
Having a political reporter write up a whole story about it? Not needed - it adds nothing to the conversation and that space can be used for something interesting instead.
and maybe her farts don't smell of baby's breath and lavender.
Careful with that ax, Eugene. In the right wing blogs, it'll take 30 seconds for someone to post that W's farts smell like beer.
She's been on tv since 1992, and now she starts laughing? The sudden laughing fits are weird.
Please, test the laugh with focus groups. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Hillary's not putting it over, not even close. If it's not just me, then there might be a problem with the mix of consultants on her team. You'd think she'd have somebody who can read non-verbal cues, but maybe not. Maybe she's surrounded herself with a certain type which lacks the brain wiring to perceive such things.
Please, test the laugh with focus groups. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Hillary's putting it over, not even close. If it's not just me, then there might be a problem with the mix of consultants on her team. You'd think she'd have somebody who can read non-verbal cues, but maybe not. Maybe she's surrounded herself with a certain type which lacks the brain wiring to perceive such things.
"...W's farts smell like beer"
It certainly would answer some of the questions I've been meaning to ask him.
Everyone who knew Scooter Libby swore up and down that he was a wonderful man. People can be "great guys" and produce awful work / do awful things.
"Having a political reporter write up a whole story about it? Not needed - it adds nothing to the conversation and that space can be used for something interesting instead."
This is a total misunderstanding of the way media function in this country.
Does a Presidential candidate announce during an interview with a "serious journalist"? Nope. During an ostensibly hilarious late night talk show? Yes, yes.
So, if a topic is serious, it will be addressed at late night show, and perhaps by serious journalists. A silly topic will be addressed solely by serious journalists (neckline, haircut).
Really, really serious topic, like an irrational hatred of little furry animals (by Guliani, in this case) or professed readiness to invade and torture other peoples (the entire GOP field with the exception of Ron Paul) is discussed only on blogs.
By the way, what is the most customary meaning of "a great guy"? I noticed that some phrases have non-obvious customary meaning. For example: "often misunderstood" -> "a bastard with a mean streak", "nice person" -> "dense, but amiable", "lack of intelectual curiosity" -> "totally ignorant", "oozes masculinity" -> "tall and wealthy". "Great guy" could mean someone who makes rousing renditions of pop songs (or operatic arias) while seriously inebriated, or some other social skill not very relevant for the writing carrier.
I saw the Stewart segment, but I didn't think her laugh was phony. She seemed pretty high on something.
I don't get why no one in the media has EVER picked up on W's annoying smirk which he affects at HIGHLY inappropriate times. (E.G., 'They're killing American troops!' SMIRK.)
It has always grated on me, to the point that I can't even stand to watch the man's speeches any more (I turn off the teevee.) I don't know anyone who finds this at all endearing, and it makes me want to punch the guy.
I still cannot figure out where the whole 'he's so likable!' shtick came from. As likable as a disease, if you ask me.
I think she should continue to laugh at any Fox news questions that make a reference to her partisanship or any other personal qualities.
A faint smile would be more appropriate for other circumstances.
Perhaps her laughs were deliberate and designed to elicit the response that NYT and other members of the media which obliged only too predictably.
Our media have become a tool of the Republican party. Not a novel thought by a long shot, but needs to be emphasized again and again and again.
twit - I don't get why no one in the media has EVER picked up on W's annoying smirk which he affects at HIGHLY inappropriate times.
If you had been paying attention you would have noticed the "Chimp's Smirk" has received tons of media coverage. As annoying as Gore's sighs or Kerry's pomposity.
Hillary has the cackle. Which has now emerged any time someone tries pinning her with a hard question. "Donor list for Bill's library.?" Cackle, cackle "Well, that's a good question...you'll have to ask him." Cackle, cackle, cackle
As she didn't have it before, I think it is something her handlers tried to introduce to her personality to make her less cold, less power-hungry. "Laugh, Ms. Rodham! Be human!"
It isn't working. Reptiles, or reptilian humans, don't laugh naturally..
Then again, there are no real "naturals" like Reagan or Clinton in this pack. Edwards is oleogenious. Richards clumsy. Biden a bloviating narcissist. Romney plastic. Obama self-deluded that he is a Magic Negro and he has an immense brain that compensates for no experience because he gave a meaningless symbolic vote against Iraq back when he was nobody in Illinois. Rudy is a collection of personality pathologies that actually serve to cance the symptoms out. The only normal human seems to be Mike Huckabee who can't win and is beholden to religious right nutcases. The rest are non-entities like Dodd, Hunter or nuts themselves like Kuchinich, McCain, Keyes, Paul, Gravel.
You know, I think the American people expect a president to fart. I believe Franklin D. Roosevelt farted, Eleanor too. There's a monument that bears testament to this in Washington, DC. Taft farted. Ulysses S. Grant would have been horribly disappointed if for one moment people thought he didn't fart. Records indicate that George Washington farted. It's the cleavage thing that has me and my staff worried. A candidate, a girl just wants to showoff some skin; you know, and the American people say get dressed? Its been said, and I believe it's true, that when even the health-care voters would rather you know smell other peoples farts than see your boobs, then that's a bad sign.
"It isn't working. Reptiles, or reptilian humans, don't laugh naturally.."
Should I be suprised that Chris Ford is a David Icke's fan?
It is all in the semantics.
Serious National Leaders® do not "cackle".
Witches cackle.
Therefore, HRC is a witch. Let's toss her in the Potomac and see if she floats.
The flipside of Healy's huge article about Hillary's "cackle" (is THAT a biased word, if there ever was one?) is that he goes out of his way to mock any attempt by anyone to talk substance.
One would have thought a reporter from The New York Times would at least be slightly embarrassed by his indifference to matters of substance. But you needn't remind me how naive that is. Sadly, I've figured it out for myself.
Comments closed October 14, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
arent you the turd that essentially said crocker's testimony should be dismissed as deceptive because he sounded depressed? Youre hardly the one to be bemoaning frivolous and lame brained commentary
Posted by pimp hand strikes! | September 30, 2007 12:50 PM