Time.com's Cox latest to attack Sen. Clinton on her voice
While live-blogging a health care forum featuring Democratic presidential candidates on March 24, Time.com Washington editor Ana Marie Cox wrote in a post on Time.com's political weblog, Swampland, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) was "eerily LOUD" and summarized Clinton's position as: "YOU CAN TELL I CARE ABOUT HEALTH CARE BECAUSE I AM SHOUTING ALL THE TIME."
From Cox's March 24 post on Swampland:
Shorter Hillary: YOU CAN TELL I CARE ABOUT HEALTH CARE BECAUSE I AM SHOUTING ALL THE TIME.
She is in favor of universal health care (now) and thinks it could take as little as ... eight years to get there. She did this weird thing where she walked around during the question time rather than sit and talk like a normal person. (Though now Kucinich is doing it, too. Uhm...) Also, apparently people are "drowning in paper," which sounds unpleasant.
She's more concrete than Obama but eerily LOUD.
Media Matters for America has documented several previous examples of media figures attacking Clinton for the tone and volume of her voice:
- In her March 7 column about Clinton's speech in Selma, Alabama, Kathleen Parker, a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, wrote that "Clinton's voice sends mannequins into a fetal curl." Parker continued: "It may not be Hillary's fault that her voice sounds like it was fashioned from metal, but it is her fault that she sounds like a car alarm when she's handed a microphone. It is her fault that she panders -- badly -- to her audiences." As Media Matters noted, Parker also wrote that Clinton "effectively mocked her audience" during that March 4 speech and showed "disrespect for the people gathered" when "she hijacked" Rev. James Cleveland's hymn "I don't feel noways tired." In fact, as footage from the speech shows, the crowd cheered Clinton as she recited the hymn and gave her a standing ovation when she concluded her speech.
- On February 2, the National Journal's Hotline On Call posted capsule reviews of various Democratic presidential candidates' speeches at the February 2 Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting and noted, in its review of Clinton, under the category "Discordant note," that Clinton's "[v]oice climbed into a yell five times" during her speech. On Call did not mention any other candidates' yelling.
- Discussing the victory speeches of Clinton and then-House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) during MSNBC's special election coverage on November 7, 2006, co-anchor Chris Matthews told Republican pollster Frank Luntz that Clinton gave a "barn-burner speech, which is harder to give for a woman; it can grate on some men when they listen to it -- fingernails on a blackboard."
- On the August 10, 2006, edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, radio host Roe Conn said of Clinton: "Is it a surprise to you that [former President] Bill [Clinton] was running out on her all the time?" While host Glenn Beck responded with, "that's not necessary," Conn nevertheless went on to mock Sen. Clinton's voice, stating, "See, there's the thing about that sound -- there's sort of that shrill kind of thing," adding, "I don't think that America is ready for six or eight months of that on the campaign trail. ... [S]he's constantly yelling at us like we're 4-year-olds."
- On the February 10, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Hardball, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough asserted that "there is a shrillness in Hillary that comes out on TV whenever she gets excited about something." Referring to a speech Clinton gave "a year ago," Scarborough added: "[E]very time her voice goes up, she gets very shrill, very un-Clinton-like, if you're talking about Bill Clinton."
I'll admit to not exactly finding Hillary's voice "soothing" when she gets a little fired up.Like John Kerry, she almost seems like a different person when she's trying to project out to a large crowd, as opposed to a one-on-one conversational chat.
Bush actually can do pretty well at the big pep rally type speech, where 3 word slogans and simple chants work best.These situations don't work as well for more thoughtful speakers.
I would say , to Hillary Clinton supporters, pointing out this weakness(perceived or real) may not be a bad thing as far as getting her message out. I know there are those who will hate HRC no matter what she does, but she could take something from these snipes.
Maybe she could have Bill do the speaking for her. Say what you will about the man, he has a way with the words, and being engaging when speaking to an audience.
"Maybe she could have Bill do the speaking for her. Say what you will about the man, he has a way with the words, and being engaging when speaking to an audience."
I agree about his way with words, but I'm in the minority...I find his gravelly voice much more irritating than hers!
Said it before...
I'll take a well read, intellectually curious, well spoken, screetching bitch over a dogma-driven, arrogant little prick like Duhhbya any day.
Any day!
Those that dislike HC will hear every word she utters as shrill and "eerily loud". Those that support her will hear her words as strong and forthright. Some woman's description in some blog won't do much to alter anyone's opinion, one way or the other.
Yes and no... those who have their minds MADE UP are not likely to change, but one person writing combined with OTHER PEOPLE writing and talking form a coalition of the shilling that may persuade those who HAVE NOT made up their minds...
Anyone that is persuaded, or dissuaded, to vote, or not vote, for Mrs. Clinton based on the sound of her voice would be pretty much unreachable on any substantive level.
I totally agree... and they still get to VOTE!! It's like that old joke- what do you call the medical school student who was LAST in their class........... DOCTOR! The point is people DO vote for stupid reasons and PEOPLE know this so they SAY and WRITE fluff pieces to persuade those morons to vote one way or another...
People vote stupid......
Indeed they do. THose that write down a "D" or a "R" just because that is the party they belong to are the ones ruining this Nation. So few voters really do any homework.
That may be true, certainly no one who did could ever vote for George the dimmer.
Yep, you just described the average American voter...
Hill has the right hair for all groups of potential voters.
It's the HAIR, not the voice.
You're ignoring the point of these articles in order to dismiss it as an isolated incident on some blog. Taken individually, these snarky comments are inconsequential and easy to dismiss, but MMFA are presenting these comments as part of a much larger pattern. The whole point is to expose the petty and obnoxious anti-Hillary talking points for what they are, and to demonstrate how the mainstream media, from Chris Matthews to TimeMagazine, continues to perseverate these empty personal attacks.
You view them as a larger pattern meant to undermine her through personal attacks. I view them as irrlevant cherry picking instances of a few pundit's personal opinions of how they hear her voice.
If she or her candidacy are that fragile, perhaps it's important to find that out now. Thanks for helping.
perhaps it has nothing to do with how "fragile" their campaign is, but the toll that a constant stream of negativity would take. that's what happened to gore.
Any politician who loses an election could say the same exact thing.....negative ads are reality and they often work. Everyone running has to learn how to deal with them effectively. Those that don't, or whine about them, should reconsider their run for any office.
and you're the first one to say all those negative attacks and ads should be ignored.
I'm not running for office.
but you're also the first one to offer advice to those that do. i guess we just ignore you because you're "not running for office".
I said they have to deal with them effectively during their campaign.......they can choose to do that anyway they want. But whining about having to at all, is a waste of time.
Who, exactly, is whining?
so the unfair and provably false perception created by the press in the case of gore was his job to overcome, and complaining about it is "whining".
Big boys and girls running for office accept politics and the often unseemly and unfair game that it is, fight back when necessary, challenge and counterpunch if warranted, and ignore and get on with it if strategically wise.
Whiners and those that won't take responsibility for their own failures and losses in politics, do the complaining.
we're not talking about "politics". we're talking about the unfairness of the press, thus your attempt to change the subject.
Oh please, it's all the same thing - it's the press covering politics.
do you think there was an equal treatment of gore and bush in 2000?
If you ask Bush supporters, they will tell you No - Gore was treated better. If you ask Gore supporters, they will say the opposite. You could go around and around forever, what's the point?
you. i asked you.
They can SAY it but its BULL. Bush was caught in outright lies and they were pooh-poohed as insignificant. Gore tried to take credit for an accomplishment he DESERVED credit for and the press ran with a GOP inspired mischaracterization that made him look like a liar and a bufoon which is STILL being spread around. Any mistatement Gore made was jumped on like a leapord on a gazelle and the most blatant ignorance from Bush like his statement about SS NOT being a federal program was appologized for. There is no possible way anyone can look at the coverage both got and objectively say Gore got better treatment, not without leaving reality far behind
If you see no pattern to the incessant petty personal attack campaigns waged by the media against powerful Democratic candidates (The Dean Scream, Gore's a fatso, etc.), then there's little point in arguing with you about the merit of YET ANOTHER instance of a pundit whining about how annoying Hillary's voice is. The fact is that these campaigns have been proven to work wonders for the GOP and their supporters. Your take of this latest (petty attacks mean Hillary is a weak candidate) only makes you another cog in their wheel. I'm not a Hillary fan at all, but it's obvious that there's a whole lot of people who are attempting to replicate past "successes" such as the Dean Scream Campaign.
Clams,
I view this whole process as part of the "strongest will survive" part of the whole thing. This is where the separation of the strong from the weak begins........negative campaigning and slime is all part of getting ready for the general election when it comes fast and furious. I don't care for any of it either, it is very distracting - but it is reality, nonetheless. One thing Bill Clinton did, to his credit, was play the game very well - I give him props for being so smart at it, it's as much a part of it as substance and issues, sadly.
It would be nice for all the focus to be substantive and issue oriented, but you know that isn't going to happen and won't. So the candidate that can deal effectively with all that's thrown at them in the primaries comes out ahead, usually.......and that's not such a bad thing. There are alot tougher and meaner people to deal with as President, than as a candidate.
Holding the media's feet to fire and exposing their lack of substance is worthwhile. Because, in my opinion, sites like MMFA can make a change. Sitting back and saying that it's all just part of the ugly process doesn't contribute anything toward improving that process or making it any less ugly and dishonest.
You're dead on with this comment CC.
Tommy when I read your posts I get the impression that you have no interest in trying change the status quo within the media.
HRC is a big girl and I think she has proven time and time again that she can deal with what the media continues to dish out. The question is why is the media engaging in commentary on how her voice sounds in the first place? Its a distraction from issues that actually matter and is a disservice to our democracy.
Combatting substantive misinformation is commendable, and very worthwhile - many items posted here do a valuable service in correcting false and misleading media information. I have no issue with that.
However, highlighting ridiculous opinionated musings from pundits regarding personal swipes about someone's voice, or appearance or some other irrelevant characteristic is not even in the same league. If you think confronting every one of these instances is important and worthwhile, then go for it.
That is the difference.
Tommy, why do you think that posts are ever made if the folks at MMFA don't think they are "worthwhile?"
You'd have to ask them; they have their opinion, I have mine.
Valentinian,
I have long thought that MMFA would be improved if it had fewer daily articles, if they eliminated some of the lesser ones. They apparently have paid employees who work regular hours--note how MMFA completely shuts down over holidays and most weekends. I believe they were down 4 days in a row at Thanksgiving of 2006. They also have interns, who most likely do not get the choice assignments.
So why do they keep publishing the lesser articles, you ask? I think it is because they have quotas for their writers, that they expect output from them on a daily basis regardless of whether the writers think they have something of significance or not. I think their repeated citations of Olbermann are like that: nothing new, but it meets the daily quota.
I mean, if you were in their shoes, wouldn't it be prudent to have a pre-written article to pull out when needed?
By the way, all of this is speculation on my part. I would like to hear from a current (or even better, former) MMFA employee to see if I am correct.
I think it's good that they keep a record of even the petty things that pundits say, even if it's Limbaugh being a jerk again. Not because I'm surprised when he's a jerk (it is, AFAIK, his job description), but rather because it's good to be able to put statements in perspective over time. Also, as links age out, it's helpful that they have a "database" of bogosoty right here on the site.
I would say I never read about 75% of the posts up here. It doesn't bother me a bit; I don't pay for access to this site.
As you said, there is no cost, so I am not "cheated" in any way by the trivial and repetitive stuff. I still wonder if the writers have quotas.
I don't need to be told by a reporter or pundit that her voice sounds shrill. I can make that determination on my own as it's a matter of personal opinion. If anything it makes their entire analysis of the person in question suspect.
I would also point out that it's taking away from the already limited amount of time spent on important topics that allow voters to make informed choices at the polls. It's pointless, negative commentary and its about time that people called them out on it and asked them to stop. I would rather hear about HRC stance on an issue in-depth and decide if her platform matches to my own feelings.
Then discount all the personal characteristic opininated blather that these pundits engage in all day long about every candidate, and focus on their stance on issues and qualitifications. You would be a far more informed voter as a result, we all would.
and if the media would concentrate on the issue instead of this crap, we'd all be better off. somehow you have a problem saying that.
Or we could go with option 2 and ask them to stop with the pointless commentary, but that would require that you to acknowledge a valid point contrary to your own now wouldn't it? Do you feel that the MSM spends enough time on issues of substance when discussing potential candidates or politics in general - > yes or no?
Yeah right, let's all just plead and beg they stop all this personal stuff, that'll work. The answer is No, I don't believe the media spends enough time on substantive issues - but they give the people what they want, for the most part. If you want to educate yourself on any candidate, there are plenty of media outlets to do so, primarily the internet and more serious informational television and newspapers. I don't get my information from these cable talk shows.
Let me ask you, do you believe this website spends too much time on silly, personal attack threads by ultra partisan screaming pundits and talk show hosts, instead of substantive misinformation?
a lot of people do not have the time to do what you suggest. they rely on the media to give them information and what they frequently get is misinformation. i have a brother and sister in law who read a daily paper and watch the evening news and until last summer they never heard of the downing street memo, when i told them about it. you continue to put the blame and the burden everywhere but where it should be.
And who's to blame? The media or those too lazy or too busy to educate themselves? Sorry, it's our responsibility. Don't blame someone else if you're not spoonfed, that is absurd.
the networks have these shows that they call "news". part of the title. when they fail to present "news" that's a problem. but you'll bend over backwards not to call it one.
furthermore the public, note public, airwaves are given to companies to supposedly serve the public. they're not doing that.
"Yeah right, let's all just plead and beg they stop all this personal stuff, that'll work."
Who said anything about pleading? MMFA has brought attention to multiple stories and we know people are taking notice. Posters on this site have taken action to write letters, emails, etc to inform new outlets of their displeasure and in some instances its be heard and action has been taken.
"The answer is No, I don't believe the media spends enough time on substantive issues -
If you answer is no then I have no idea why your arguing about this? Is it because you refuse to be acknowledge a point that is contrary to your own?. Less time on non-substantive issues = more time on issues that matter.
"but they give the people what they want, for the most part."
What do you mean by this and how do you know? Please show me a report or a poll that states people want more fluff and less news?
"If you want to educate yourself on any candidate, there are plenty of media outlets to do so, primarily the internet and more serious informational television and newspapers. I don't get my information from these cable talk shows."
Neither do I, but the fact is many people do get their information from these shows and there is nothing wrong with putting pressure on the people that host or create these shows to stick to the issues.
"Let me ask you, do you believe this website spends too much time on silly, personal attack threads by ultra partisan screaming pundits and talk show hosts, instead of substantive misinformation?z"
No I don't as it shows an overall pattern of what the news has become or what type of information people are getting from these shows. I think its important for people that don't listen to these shows to see and hear what a portion of population thinks or is consuming to have a better understanding of why they believe what they do. I also think it important that someone takes the garbage that they spew to their audience and hold it up in a public forum for everyone to see and helps in marginalizing these extreme views. Don't you find it's interesting when people like Melanie Morgan, Weiner, and BOR freak out when a transcript of their words are being posted in a public forum? If there isn't anything wrong with what they're saying then why do they get so upset?
This rationalisation might make some sense if the "slime" were distributed equally. Instead, the narrative is set by the Heathers in our media, so all the process really gives is "survival of the favoured." Hardly evolution in action...
Can you imagine these idiot 'pundits' and hacks, carefully reviewing and examining the Senator's public speeches, and coming away with nothing more substantial, than a foolish critique of the sound of her voice, as she raises it to be heard by a crowd?
I mean, is that the only thing they could find, in scouring her speech... something about her voice?
I can just imagine these idiot 'pundits' and hacks to blather on, after perhaps a debate, about how the candidates were dressed, about how their hair was styled or combed, about their personal grooming or any other observation of personal hygiene, and yes, about the quality of their voices...
"But what about what they said, you know, about National Policy in general, or the exorbitant (crushing) costs of health care specifically?"
"Who the frig cares about that nonsense.."
...the fashion critic and speech therapist 'pundit' idiots would retort...
"What do you mean 'national policy'? You speak as though we were choosing a president or something."
Points well made, however one could also say that those that highlight such fluffy, irrelevant nonsense are also contributing to the foolish critique of a person's voice while ignoring the more substantial elements of the candidate's positions.
One COULD SAY... and I have responded in the past that some COULD SAY that ignoring these types of remarks is NOT the way to highlight the banality of MSM's *reportings*... I say call them out on it EVERYTIME!! Imagine if your child were caught teasing another child because your kid thought the other kid had a weird voice... would you ignore your child's teasing in hopes it would go away or would you reprimand your child to TEACH them it is wrong?
Thus, permutation #451 of the "why is this here" comment.
Thus, whine #452 of "why can't everyone just cheerlead, applaud and parrot every topic and every leftwing poster here" comment.
the difference being, we've seen you pull the "why is this here" comment at least 451 times, and what you're "quoting" is a figment of your imagination.
I guess that would make it Strawman #934.
False dichotomy #785. Valentinian's point was that your "why is this here" posts are bereft of substance. Your constant parrotting of "move on, nothing to see here" is just as empty as any left-wing cheerleading. Write something worthwhile and people will stop pointing this out to you.
Thanks for the advice..........you have just emboldened me to be more contrarian. (if that means you will ignore me, but you won't)
did you just say that you will say things just to be "more contrarian"? sounds like your beliefs are swayed by what other people think of you.
No, I was just wondering why anyone would respond to any post "bereft of substance?" Ask Clams, he apparently can't resist.
that doesn't sound like what you said. why should i ask clams about something you said?
Why do you feel the need to post on items that you deam as "nothing to see here / "why is this here?" items on MMFA?
Because he thinks we find it annoying, rather than puzzling and kind of sad.
Actually, it's none of the three. It's strictly my opinion. If it's annoying to you, don't respond. If it's puzzling or sad, you are not obliged to respond.
Why do you find it necessary to tell CC or others to stop replying to your posts if they find them “bereft of substance” when they just want to give their opinion? You continue to chime in with your 2 cents on every MMFA item that you find pointless with expanded commentary on why. You could follow your own advice and not reply.Is your new motto do as I say not as I do?
I didn't tell anybody anything. I wondered, and still do, why people respond to posts that are frivilous or have no substance? If they find it so necessary to respond, then don't whine about why they are there in the first place.
don't whine about why they are there in the first place.
That's all we've been saying to you all along.
" If they find it so necessary to respond, then don't whine about why they are there in the first place"
Your the King of whine when it comes to items you think are irrelevant on MMFA and you have yet to let me down when it comes to finding it necessary to respond to these types of posts. I don't think you can help yourself...... It's like some type of pathological disorder. You haven't seen the posts teasing you about this on other threads?
You can either stop chastising others for this or follow your own advice
No he is right it is puzzling and kind of sad
recall what those dumbdits and professional liars did to Howard Dean.
Right or wrong... everyone made of Dean, even the Daily Show. It was even a running gag for the longest time.
The Deanscream was just unbridled enthusiasm, and 'tho I'm no Dean fan, I thought it was a welcome departure from routine, careful, tight-a$$ campaigning.
Raised my opinion of him, actually, because his personality is a bit subdued and negative.
Dean is a bit conservative for my tastes but when you listen to him you get his opinion not some focus group tested talking point. Distorting the scream by using a mike that filtered out the ambient noise was a dirty trick the media should not have played on him.
The Dean Scream was delivered after his loss in Iowa. It was delivered during the Democratic Primaries. While the over-playing of this clip probably did turn some voters off....it would have been mostly Democratic voters. And perhaps a few Independents. But the Dean Scream was not a National Election turn-off because Howard Dean never got that far. He wasn't the party's nominee for President.
Hillary Clinton does occasionally sound shrill when she's delivering a speech. But like a few here have pointed out, IF this is what wins or loses voters for her, then they weren't terribly informed to begin with.
Unfortunately because the 2008 Presidential race has begun prematurely, bloggers, pundits, and just about anyone involved in the media are left with time on their hands to find viable important issues to write/speak about. So what we seem to be getting are a lot of marriage factor stories and other fluff pieces...including a critique on Hillary's speaking voice.
But Jeter, if the mainstream media hadn't shown an unhinged Dean screaming his head off during his concession speech, those Democratic voters in subsequent primary states wouldn't have seen it - consequently he would have sailed through and been the nominiee......it's all their fault, not his.
he was yelling over a crowd. the crowd noise was removed. thus creating a false image of this crazy guy shouting in a silent room. not the only reason he lost, but no one can argue it didn't create a false impression of dean. well, no one but .....
It also served to discredit him beyond just the election. Nobody seems to remember what Dean was warning everyone about during the lead up to the Iraq war (hint: he was right about everything), but they sure remember that scream. Everyone on the right was enabled by the media to write him off as a nutcase.
No, the reason Dean was viewed as a "nutcase" is because he even mentioned the possible and "interesting" theory that the Saudis warned Bush prior to 9/11 about it's occurence.
Dean was viewed as a nutcase because he was anti War in 2004. However if Howard Dean were running for President in todays enviornment he would be leading in the polls .
If that is "nutcase", I suppose I am.
He never said any such thing. Please document.
tommy said:
No, the reason Dean was viewed as a "nutcase" is because he even mentioned the possible and "interesting" theory that the Saudis warned Bush prior to 9/11 about it's occurence.
i never heard about this, where and when did this happen?
thanks
Where is Mistah Kurtz complaining about partisanship here? (crickets)
Why, heavens to Betsy, he's not heah!
Well at least they are doing serious political commentary... I can't wait for the Fox News panel discussion Why Hillary is a Poopyhead.
I am sure that will be a topic on FOX soon.
On the February 10, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Hardball, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough asserted that "there is a shrillness in Hillary that comes out on TV whenever she gets excited about something." Referring to a speech Clinton gave "a year ago," Scarborough added: "[E]very time her voice goes up, she gets very shrill, very un-Clinton-like, if you're talking about Bill Clinton
Ok really? do you have specific examples Joe , I did not realize you are an expert on the Clintons and "shrill" like speeches.
Et tu, Wonkette?
I call her "Swampette;" Wonkette is now Alex and Ken.
Clicked on Ken. That's out of bounds.
Made me sick. The man hasn't been there.
" Scarborough added: "[E]very time her voice goes up, she gets very shrill, very un-Clinton-like, if you're talking about Bill Clinton."
Scarborough's comment highlights something I've been saying for a while. Hillary Clinton's fundamental political weakness that she's not Bill Clinton. They are both intelligent people but with respect to political skills, charisma and personality Hillary pales in comparison to Bill. Politically speaking it's both a blessing and a curse for Hillary that Bill is her husband
I understand how they feel. Whenever I hear Dick Morris on Faux news I cover my ears and scream, "make it stop, make it stop."
It never does.
But it is what he says that appalls me most. Any reasonable intelligent person would override this reaction to someone and listen to the message. Some people type their posts in all caps does this mean they are crazy, loud or can't type?
Speaking of Dick Morris, I flipped by Hannity and Colmes last night, and they had him on the phone ( I guess he was out of town whining about the Clintons and couldn't make it to the studio).
There was a glitch where Morris couldn't hear Hannity or Colmes, so he was just this disembodied static-y voice droning on as the two hosts kept saying "Dick- hey, Dick", but they let him go for quite a while. It was really sad, like somebody on a suicide hot line.Except funny.
He has become the FOX resident Hillary basher. For some reason he is viewed as being credible by FOX which means he is far from it. I still do not get Former President Clintons judgement in hiring this hater.
OH, I think he is a snake as well, but Clinton hired him so he could get re-elected... and he did. No misjudgment there. Bubba is no saint, he's a politician.
I guess having one bad ear, and one useless, is not such a dire thing after all: I get to READ THE WORDS, rather than be all hung up on the vocalization! That way, I actually learn what the "speaker" is attempting to say.
I am so embarrassed for MMFA when they post petty crap like this. It was live blogging, for God's sake - one person's immediate reaction to what they're seeing & hearing, and finally, she's right. MMFA needs to stop seeing every criticism of Democratic candidates as part of the conservative media problem, because it totally delegitimizes the vast majority of their work that is so important and good.
Tommy? Is that you?