« Mass Update | Main | Edwards on Contractors » Going Meta03 Oct 2007 01:14 am This is great. First we had New York Times articles scrutinizing Hillary Clinton's laugh, and now we have Washington Post articles about the existence of articles scrutinizing Clinton's laugh. And now, I suppose, I'm making it even worse by blogging about the meta-articles. But seriously, at some point doesn't this madness need to stop? (and, no, don't answer that) Comments (22)
This is bullshit. For years, her LIBERAL critics have been saying she is a triangulating, fence sitting, weasel wording corporate candidate. But now, because it somehow offends you, no one is allowed to mention the evidence of the above. Fuck Hillary. If she can't deal with this, and you can't deal with this, she doesn't deserve to be our nominee. 
Or perhaps, on second thought, that's just the whacked-out conspiracy of someone who doesn't have a TV and learns about everything from newspaper websites, web clips, and blogs. Let me ask, for those who saw a couple of Clinton's Sunday appearances: was the laugh really noticeable? Or did it take the Daily Show segment to really bring it to your attention?
sorry, just had to comment on the comments on the blog entry about the article about the article. what was the article about again?
Well, you could compile your own meta-stories on Rudy!'s cellphone use, or just a WTF collection on Grandpa Fred. (I was just up in the Rangely Lakes area in Maine, and there was, no joke, a big red pickup with NH plates reading FRED 08 at the local coffee, donut and paper shop [sorta downeast version of an NYC Yemeni bodega]. I asked the proprietor if the owner of the car was around, and she pointed him out on the dining deck. Not Fred.)
Jesus. 4 is not a meta comment. A proper meta-comment would address the issue of whether or not the madness should or should not stop. 4 just pointlessly asserts its presence, and then further degrades the structure by directly referencing the original article.
Jay Ackroyd: Rangely, being in Western Maine, is not Downeast.
In 2000 the media accidentally stumbled upon a brilliant business strategy. They tore apart Gore on shallow gossipy nonsense. As a result, Bush was able to invade Iraq and I have to imagine media consumption and profitability jumped. Now they're doing it to Hillary so that Giuliani can start another endless war, with Iran or whoever's fashionable at the time.
I think it's possible that a few memes may have been set up so far in this campaign that would enable Democrats to equalize the "shallow" playing field. Rudy as ignorant, sadistic, libidinally out of control crazy uncle. (See: whites of eyes; cell phone use.) Fred as ignorant, lazy, phony "down home" grandpa. (See: red pickup truck.) The problem is that the memes about the Republicans are actually true, and bear on their likely competence as President. Therefore they're much less likely to get substantial media play.
I have no idea what you are talking about, missed this subject altogether, haven't been watching TV. However, I did listen to a clip from a debate this morning where Gravel lit into her over her Iran war nonsense and she laughed. When I heard that, I had an instant and fully formed wish that someone would have thrown a sack of bulldog shit in her face.
(and, no, don't answer that) AWWWWWWW, Daaaadddddddddd! Anyways: ya know'd, back in 2000, Al Gore did get excessively reamed, and as a consequence we got a President who in short order completely abandoned his platform and totally abandoned his pre-election (so-called) governing style. Sooo..... Kurtz quotes Klein: "Yes, the laugh is awkward (when staged) and yes, her campaign is focus-grouped up the wazoo. But then, so is Obama's and the campaigns of all the other candidates flush enough to hire political consultants." Ok, well, great. Is anybody actually going to be digging to get past the focus-grouping of the candidates including Clinton or is this just the lazy asshole's method of investigation? max p.s. Why can't I use strike and underline? I'm debing deprived of the good jokes here!
apparently Ann Althouse is now floating the brilliant idea that Clinton has affected a grating laugh _on purpose_ to distract people from engaging in serious criticism of her substantive views. The same applies, I guess, to Clinton's having once shown the tiniest bit of cleavage. That sounds insane, I know, but this is Althouse.
It could be worse. You are blogging about an article about an article about a laugh, but I am commenting on a blog post about an article about an article about a laugh. Our fleas have lesser fleas upon their back to bitem and those fleas have lesser flees and so ad infinitum.
At some point, the madness needs to stop. But we have already made a generational commitment to madness. Bwah-ha-ha-ha!!! Ha-ha-ha!!! Bwah-ha-ha!!!
It just might be that Hilary laughs because she thinks stupid questions are funny. We have been all looking for a way to fight back against the stupidification of the journalists and commentators and their questions with unacceptable premises. When Chris Wallace on Fox News asks Hillary why she and her husband as so hyper-partisan, she laughed at the question. Instant Bob Somerby! Politicians laughing off stupid questions could make unnecessary vast regions of the blogosphere!
If the laugh as currently deployed does not poll as a negative, I'll go vegetarian for a week.
Yes, but it won't.
I must say, to me "the laugh" does sound like she is high on drugs. Personally I don't care if she is, but it's certainly a legitimate journalistic pursuit. Hope this doesn't offend anyone here.
Great. Now Andrew will use this as another self-fulfilling reason not to vote for Clinton. Don't vote for her because people will criticize her for silly things.
I think although foolish mortal's critique of metametametacomment's metacomment accurately assesses a point he did not make, it thoroughly misses the point he did make.
I'm a liberal. I'll vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. But I have to say I saw the laugh(s) and really felt they were a product of a meeting with consultants who told her "You need to get on the Sunday shows and show you have a sense of humor" or some such thing. I found it a calculated gesture on her part, something that a lot of her critics rightly take issue with. I'll vote for her, but I don't like that type of campaigning. And I think the reporting on it is relevant and material to the campaign.
Right. And if she scowled she'd be criticized for that. Al Gore was stiff and had a wardrobe consultant and thank goodness he didn't win in 2000 because it was much better to elect a guy you'd want to have a beer with. I have a problem with the whole relevance thing.
Comments closed October 17, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Has it occurred to anyone else that maybe the whole cackle thing started with TPM's compilation of HRC's appearance on Sunday? It was a short video editing together her impressively on-message responses, and in on stretch, you saw several of her laughs in a row.
I wonder if Dowd, Rich, and/or Daily Show staffers also saw this.
I find it interesting and ironic that perhaps this whole stupid story began because superficial pundits happened to be paying attention to two ardent critics of superficial pundits (Josh Marshall and Jon Stewart).
Posted by Philly | October 3, 2007 1:32 AM