Joe Klein: Earlier in the year, Clinton spoke "from ... her diaphragm. Now she's speaking much more quickly again and through her nose"
On CNN, Anderson Cooper asked Joe Klein: "You actually -- you hear fear in
Hillary Clinton's voice?" Klein responded: "Well, it's interesting. Earlier in
the year when she was doing really well, she was speaking more slowly and from,
like, her diaphragm. Now, she's speaking much more quickly again and through her
nose. It's interesting."
On the December 13 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, while discussing the Democratic presidential debate earlier that day, host Anderson Cooper asked Time columnist Joe Klein: "It's interesting, Joe. I mean, you've followed campaigns for a long time. You actually -- you hear fear in [Sen.] Hillary Clinton's voice?" Klein responded: "Well, it's interesting. Earlier in the year when she was doing really well, she was speaking more slowly and from, like, her diaphragm. Now, she's speaking much more quickly again and through her nose. It's interesting."
Earlier that day, Klein had written a post on Time's Swampland blog in which he asserted:
Clinton seemed a little desperate, to me at least. She was authoritative, detailed and strong on substance, as always. She cracked a few jokes, tried to seem less scripted. As noted above, that didn't always work. Also, a technical matter: When she was really clicking on the campaign trail this year, she had slowed down her pace and lowered the timbre of her voice -- made it sound warmer. Now she's back to talking fast and nasal again. I don't mind it, but others may find it abrasive.
Earlier in the year, Klein joined other commentators discussing the quality of Clinton's laugh, as Media Matters noted. In a September 30 Swampland post, he wrote: "Yes, the laugh is awkward (when staged) and yes, her campaign is focus-grouped up the wazoo. But then, so is [Sen. Barack] Obama's [D-IL] and the campaigns of all the other candidates flush enough to hire political consultants. (Obama's a more elegant speaker than Clinton but about as spontaneous as a fence post, which is a real problem for a candidate who is supposed to be the Next New Thing.)" He also wrote in a November 7 Time cover story that "Clinton has always had a problem with authenticity. Her laugh, sometimes awkwardly manufactured for public use yet always delightfully raucous in private, is Exhibit A."
From the December 13 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
COOPER: David Gergen, where are the policy differences among these candidates?
GERGEN (CNN senior political analyst and former presidential adviser): You can't tell policy difference. There was very little daylight between them today, Anderson. You're right about that.
What I do think voters can separate out, though, is, they look for themes. And on that, I think John Edwards was the best today. He was the most focused. I think he actually walked away with some honors today.
But they also then look for the human elements. Just as we saw in the YouTube debate with the Republicans, you know, how Mike Huckabee seemed so authentic and warm, and that really helped him.
Today, I must tell you that Mrs. Clinton, who's very good on the issues, didn't have that kind of human warmth, except in a couple of places. But it was Barack Obama, I think, who was more at ease in this debate than I've ever seen him in the past Democratic debates and I think had some of that warmth.
COOPER: It's interesting, Joe. I mean, you've followed campaigns for a long time. You actually -- you hear fear in Hillary Clinton's voice?
KLEIN: Well, it's interesting. Earlier in the year when she was doing really well, she was speaking more slowly and from, like, her diaphragm. Now, she's speaking much more quickly again and through her nose. It's interesting. Other --
COOPER: How you even notice these sorts of things, I can't even imagine, but you've been doing this far too long.
KLEIN: I've been watching these people for 20 years, the Clintons.
hey it's joe klein the liar. the guy that said democrats passed a bill giving terrorists the same rights as americans when it comes to a wiretapping warrant. and then said it was all a matter of interpretation. the republicans say this, the democrats say that.....
the language of the bill is in this link. it specifies that a warrant is "not required" for a non citizen or anyone outside the country.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/25/klein_fisa/index.html
Joe Klein, still talking out of his ass.
LOL - is that better or worse that talking from your diaphram or through your nose?
If Time magazine had anyone with any competence at their magazine, Klein should have been canned long ago.
He lied about what rights the democrats were going to give terrorist SUSPECTS, lied about what he said and ridiculed those who called him to task.
Karl the traitor Rove is making crap up at Newsweak, and Klein is making crap up at Time.
NoTime and Newsweak are less credible than the supermarket tabloids.
I don't see what the big deal with voices is. We have a President now in George W. Bush who can barely speak to begin with. We should judge by content, not delivery. Hillary will win the White House and the conservatives in this country will be stark raving mad. I personally can't wait.
Thats a good point. I am still hoping we get someone other than Hillary from the Democrats. It might be entertaining to see the conservative heads doing a 360 like in the excorsist but I would rather see Edwards or Obama
This is why, as much as I admire Clinton, I want Edwards to be the nominee. There will be no end to this pathetic garbage if Hillary wins the nomination.
Hillary Cackles. She talks out of her nose. She's polarizing. She's the Ice Princess. She's a Carpetbagger, a Flip-flopper, a Socialist, a Corporatist, blah blah blah. A year of this crap? Pass.
but we will get the same stuff with edwards as the nominee. it's only because he has lost a little steam that he's being more or less ignored to an extent now. i think nominating either edwards or obama would be a mistake. i would vote for either one, but i think the right will portray either as far out liberals. they can do that to an extent with hillary, but she is more a centerist. and obama and edwards would be portrayed as too soft on terrorism and unable to protect us. it's a little harder to label her that way [ironic, i know, since she's the woman.] because they have spent 15 years portraying her as the tough cookie, ruthless as they come. the idea behind bill clinton's candidacy was a move to someone more centerist, after the dukakis debacle. and dukakis came out of the convention with a very large lead over poppy bush. i still think there would have been a chance at beating junior in 04 with wes clark. not that there was anything wrong with kerry, but the gop started in with all the he's too liberal stuff.
MEFIRST, why do the Democrats allow the Republicans to define them as "far out liberals"? I've always been liberal, and when I was younger, "far out" was not a term of disparagement at all. Often, it was a groovy thing to be!
You seem to assume that the people have accepted the right-wing suggestion that "liberal" = bad. In the years when the Reagan spell held sway, that might have been so, but I think times are changing.
So, why allow Republicans to smear them without fighting back, as John Kerry did in '04?
Why be so civil and amicable in debate, as Joe Lieberman and John Edwards did when one-on-one with Cheney in 2000 and 2004? Cheney spread his dark aura over the proceedings and his pronouncements went largely unchallenged by either Democratic candidate, who seemed to be content to smile and be regarded as great gentlemen for their comity. That might have pleased David Broder, but it obviously didn't impress the voters.
I think it's high time the Democratic Party and its candidates recall how elections used to be won - as in 1948 - by telling people the truth. Harry S Truman was no great shakes as an orator, and he wasn't all that popular at the time. His opponent was a suave Eastern "liberal" Republican who looked and acted "presidential" and was widely regarded as a gentleman, as contrasted with the rough-hewn Missouri jackass, President Truman.
But Truman came out swinging, called out the Republican 80th Congress on its obstructionism and told the truth as he saw it. He was convincing enough to win a second term despite popular perception, the formidable moneyed interests and right-wing press (The Chicago Tribune ) arrayed against him, and even third-party bids by a progressive and a reactionary (who took four states in the heretofore "Solid South"). Why? The people believed that he believed in himself - and them - and was strong and resolute in that belief.
This time around, the Republican candidates are such a miserable lot of stooges and poseurs that the Democratic candidates, whoever they turn out to be, will have to pull off a prodigious act of self-destruction to lose the election to any of them.
It won't be necessary to take pages out of Karl Rove's nasty playbook or to lie like the Swift Boaters to win. You don't have to become the enemy to beat him. But for the sake of this once-great nation and its precious constitution, the Democratic Party must find its backbone - and its soul. A good place to look would be in its history - and in Harry Truman's playbook.
it's not a matter of "allowing" them to do anything. they will do it, and have the media's help doing it. and if you think "far out" is a compliment when it comes to a politician, you're wrong. i think hillary has a better chance than edwards or obama. my opinion, but i think it's based on reality.
I think you missed my point, ME. I know what the Repubs will do, and I know that certain elements of the media will aid and abet them in doing it. What I'm saying is that the Democrats ought not just lie down, roll over and submit to the abuse, as they have done all too often in recent times.
I gave you what I thought was a good example of how a Democrat conducts a winning campaign despite a facing hostile media (in Truman's time much of the press did not like him; only the broadcast media were fair and balanced, but of course that was when they still employed journalists).
Also, my mention of "far out" was meant to be self-deprecating, tongue-in-cheek humor, but maybe you're not old enough to get the connotation. I'm certainly not suggesting that such a label, if pinned on a politician, would be anything but hurtful. In his day, Truman was frequently called "High Tax Harry", but he didn't allow that slam to define him in his own mind, so consequently it failed to influence a majority of the electorate, and they did not reject him because of an opposition's label.
Well then, it comes down to your opinion that Hillary stands a better chance than Obama or Edwards. Fair enough, you may be right, but in any case I shall vote for the Democratic candidate. If you think, however, that if that candidate is someone other than Hillary the Repubs win, I think you're mistaken. The Republicans are that bad, and I think the voters have been led down the booby path one time too many, and are not of a mind to be fooled again.
i did not miss your point. i directly addressed it. and i agree that this is a motley group of republican candidates, all with major baggage. and i did not say that anyone beside hillary would lose, i just think she stands the best chance of winning. given that the democrats fielded a superb well qualified candidate in 2000 against a bumbling incoherent alcoholic who had zero qualifications, i take nothing for granted. gore sighed, heaven forbid, in one of the debates, and caught flack from the media.
Do you think that all recovering alcoholics should be disqualified from running for President? It seems to me there are enough things to criticize the current President about without disparaging him for what has been categorized as a disease.
Bruce, I agree. W's (allegedly past) alcoholism is probably the least of the factors which should have kept him away from the presidency.
no i don't, but i think it was a factor to take into consideration. he did nothing but party and run three businesses into the ground until the time he was 40. a frivilous life basically that did nothing to qualify him to run this country. there are alcoholics who do perform in life. he's not one. and if it was a disease, then the presidency did not need to be part of his recovery. he was, and is, unfit to hold the office.
There is also the "dry drunk" syndrome...
[link to www.counterpunch.org]
That's the real irony of "the backfire" here.
The Rightwing thought that portraying Hillary as ruthless, a ball-buster, and a lamp-throwing temper tantrum waiting to explode ... would destroy her political prospects because, well, they figured nobody would tolerate a "masculine woman". Throw in the rumors about lesbianism, and you have the rightwing trying to tell American that Hillary is a "bull dyke", and watch out!
So the IRONY is that the main issue today is 'who is tough enough to face down America's enemies'?
Ooops. This wasn't supposed to happen; the rightwing has already provided Hillary with all the credentials she needs to fill that bill in spades. They cannot backtrack now without looking blatantly stupid, so now they've lost their main issue.
Now they're busy trying to portray her as mean and underhanded ... which is territory in which the rightwing en masse has dominated for decades. Is it REALLY their current strategy to morph Hillary into Karl Rove? LOL. What a mess they have made for themselves!
jjamele2880: One side of me wants to respond scolding you for letting name-calling and superficial personal ridicule by these pundits get in the way of your vote – and the other wants to agree with you because it seems that this is the way elections are won nowadays. I’m saddened to think about all the voters who will make a decision based on fear of the negativity over confidence in a candidate’s abilities and experience. Is the media helping us or breaking us?
I haven’t made up my mind yet on anything other than I know I won’t be voting for any Republican candidate. I like any of the top 3 Democrats, but having been raised in Cleveland and following Kucinich’s career, the fact that I’ve always loved his spunk and underdog reputation, his stand on gay rights, labor, and the war – I like him too. (Too bad he doesn’t have a chance in hell.) It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Clearly Time Warner is trying to rehabilitate Joe Klein. He was one of the darlings of the "Liberal Media" masquearading as objective but we have since wised up.
Hey Joe, I know your here; I'm still keeping my sense of humor for my brother serving in Iraq, his wife, my niece and nephews. Anymore jokes?
Oh I forgot, You are the joke. Now I get it.
Earlier in life, Joe Klein talked out of his nose.
Now, he's speaking much more quickly out of his a**.
STEVE K:
Brilliant! LOL
The thing that first strikes me as funny is the use of the word “diaphragm”. He would have used that word if she wasn’t a woman? Most people would say something like “speak through your lungs, not your nose”.
A direct pander to all the ”he-man woman haters” out there? (I’m really showing my age, if you’re not a Little Rascals fan.)
We report, you decide! (Oh, this is CNN? Well, getting to be the same difference lately it seems)
"This is why, as much as I admire Clinton, I want Edwards to be the nominee. There will be no end to this pathetic garbage if Hillary wins the nomination."
Sadly, there will be no end to this pathetic garbage NO MATTER WHO is the nominee. See Gore, Al or Kerry, John for details.
Earlier in the year Joe was speaking more slowly and from, like, his esophagus. Now, he's speaking much more quickly again and through his rear end. It's interesting.
Probably because his nerves are at the breaking point, what with needing to spew out copy week after week with no real attempt to go deeper than his own tattered made-up narrative about everybody.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
There was a time when Joe sees as "serious political commentary" that speaks to body language as though he were a doctor of psychology, or a M.D., some kind of professional poker player giving a read on who had the best hand.
If this is the kind of evalutation they are to give, I think I would appreciate a real handicapper, or gambler making those kind of judgements, not a mark like Joe. A tool is what he has become, like everybody he just wanted to keep his job in the new corporate media of as it is today.
Happy Thoughts
Here's a suggestion, Joe.
How about instead of trying to come up with clever soundbites that are contrarian as a means of "gaining attention" by bashing the frontrunner for subjective "analysis" of characteristics which are wholly irrelevant ...
... How about INSTEAD you do your job and help the American people decide which candidate would be best for America? Do you REALLY think it is responsible journalism to submit your interpretation of a "diaphragm/nose controversy" as a deciding factor to consider?
It is CRAP, Joe, and it's also transparently doing the bidding of the RNC. You have joined in the crowd that wishes to identify "pantsuits/pastel colors", "expensive haircuts", and "missing lapel pins" as the defining issues of the day.
You guys should be mortally embarrassed and ashamed! Could be honorable journalists helping make a better America, and instead have turned rightwing tool.
It almost seems a classic INTERVENTION is in order, like would be called for with an alcoholic or drug abuser. Confront this man, and force him to face what he has become, and ask him if that's REALLY what he wants to do with his life.