Fox & Friends aired "Dean scream" and "Clinton cackle" to show purported similarities
During the October 9 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy asked Republican pollster Frank Luntz: "What do you think of [Democratic presidential candidate] John Edwards -- the guy with the $400 haircut -- yesterday, saying, 'Hey, don't be so fast to pick [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton (D-NY)]. Remember [former Vermont Gov.] Howard Dean [D].' " As Luntz responded, "[Y]es, remember how Howard Dean went up, and remember how Howard Dean came down," Fox News aired an audio clip of Dean's exclamation during his 2004 concession speech after the Iowa Democratic presidential primary. After Doocy replied, "That's like a cackle," Fox News aired part of an audio clip of Clinton laughing during a September 23 interview on Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday.
As Media Matters for America documented, following Clinton's appearance on all five Sunday political talk shows on September 23, the Republican National Committee highlighted audio and video clips of Clinton's laughter. Since then, there has been intense media coverage of Clinton's laugh, with some media figures characterizing it as a "cackle."
From the October 9 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: We talked about this yesterday, a heated exchange with an Iowa voter who now says she won't vote on, for, him, her, based on that exchange. How does she look? Look who is here, national pollster and author of Words That Work, Frank Luntz. Good morning to you, Frank.
LUNTZ: Good morning. How are you?
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): Is that a big deal?
LUNTZ: No.
DOOCY: Why not?
LUNTZ: It really isn't, because any other person who had that kind of exchange, it wouldn't even have made it on air. With her, every potential misstep gets brought into the discussion.
It's far more dangerous for her -- this so-called cackle is a much greater threat for her, because it shows that someone is rehearsed, that she is fake.
DOOCY: You're talking about that laugh she used with Chris Wallace. I don't know if we have it, but this would be a good place to play it.
[audio clip of Clinton laughing]
DOOCY: That one? That cackle?
LUNTZ: Yeah. I can't do it. I mean, I can't laugh like that.
KILMEADE: [CBS Face the Nation host] Bob Schieffer, she did it with everyone.
LUNTZ: Everyone.
KILMEADE: It seemed.
LUNTZ: Yes.
KILMEADE: You know what is so strange about it? It just didn't seem to fit, Frank. It just didn't seem -- not that it seemed as fake, for me anyway. It didn't seem like it was a fake laugh, it just seemed inappropriate. And what's funny about those situations which she was laughing at?
LUNTZ: Someone taught her, or told her, that you laugh that way and that diffuses the question and also gives her a moment to respond. It makes her look human. Here is the problem, when you do it every single time at every tough question.
DOOCY: Sure.
LUNTZ: She has Dan Quayled herself. She is now in danger of being the focus of ridicule by late-night comedians and every time she laughs, people will remember --
DOOCY: Right.
LUNTZ: -- when she did it last time. It's too rehearsed. It's not fake. This kind of exchange she had with that voter, candidates have that all the time. It's no big deal.
DOOCY: OK, well, speaking of fodder for the late-night comics, look at Sandy Berger. Apparently he's one of her unofficial advisers. We were talking about this yesterday when the news broke. It seems extraordinary that she would have an unofficial adviser on the team, a guy who admits, "Yeah I took all that secret stuff, and I threw it away."
LUNTZ: But how great is that? She now has an official shredder. Anything that she doesn't want, "Sandy. Psst. Come on over here."
KILMEADE: It does show bad judgment. And if you are Edwards and [Sen. Barack] Obama [D-IL], you welcome this? What do you do with this?
LUNTZ: Actually, if I'm one of them, I wouldn't say anything because Berger is a very smart man. He does know his stuff. He knows history. He knows geopolitics. He knows global affairs. He behaved in a bad way, but in terms of intellect, I don't think she made the wrong decision by going to him. I think that she made the wrong decision by allowing it to get out.
DOOCY: What do you think of John Edwards -- the guy with the $400 haircut -- yesterday, saying, "Hey don't be so fast to pick Hillary. Remember Howard Dean."
LUNTZ: Well, Howard Dean -- yes, remember how Howard Dean went up, and remember how Howard Dean came down.
DEAN [audio clip]: Yeaaaahh!
LUNTZ: The issue for Edwards --
DOOCY: That's like a cackle.
CLINTON [audio clip]: (laughing)
LUNTZ: Wow, you have a very -- you know, you're supposed to stop drinking by the time you get on the show in the morning.
KILMEADE: Frank is actually -- you're a little thrown by this.
LUNTZ: Yeah, I'm surprised.
More crucial factors to consider when you Dems nominate your next presidential ticket, courtesy of the ever-observant right-wing media.
I'm also curious how the Douche and the Duntz can reach such a conclusion without utilizing the most crucial of right wing media contributors, the body language expert.
So what's the problem? This is in-depth investigative journalism - and you dare to question it? That's downright un-American!
This may be one of the most important clips YET this campaign season.
Here's Frank Luntz, the Rightwing's premier wordsmith and "message man" ... very much downplaying the importance of Hillary's laugh, and also the referred-to clip of an exchange with a voter. "Happens all the time," he says. This won't be the way to take Hillary down, he implies.
Luntz says neither thing is of much importance. In fact, he slams the "Fox Friends" for even bringing up the topic along with the pre-planned clips of Dean's scream and Hillary's cackle ... he accuses them of DRINKING EARLY.
These guys have been dissed by the master. What up with THAT?
This is definitely cause for concern in the Democratic camps. If Luntz will not be relying this season on the tried-and-true "GOTCHA" moments of exclamations taken out of all context, what DOES he have planned?
"what DOES he have planned"?
Oh dear Tex, showcasing many of the socialistic giveaway policies of a few eager Democratic candidates is quite enough. The fear of their enactment has none of us cackling.
"The fear of their enactment has none of us cackling."
- tommy / Tuesday October 9, 2007 04:45:29 PM EST
You should say:
"The fear of their enactment [doesn't have me] cackling."
or
"The fear of their enactment [has no one on the far right] cackling."
You bet!!! I and every other American just can't get enough of that good old conservative confiscatory, "ownership" society love we've been getting for the past 7 years. I say we just do away with taxes completely on the rich, they deserve it after being good enough to employ us at great wages with super benefits packages all these years.
Yes, our corporate masters treat us sooo good, we should be grateful for all the bounty they allow us to have. We should all pull ourselves up by our bootstraps like other trust fund babies and suck it up for the rich in this country who just give and give and keep on GIVING for us lazy, ungrateful slobs!
Both the "scream" & the "cackle" share that haunted house scary kind of sound to them. Well Halloween is coming so I'm just being seasonal here ;-)
But J,
This is serious stuff - remember, as so many here have said, Dean's "scream" was manufactured by the media, they turned up the volume on our TV sets so Dean just sounded hysterical.
As for Clinton's "cackle", this time, apparently, the media injected sound editing and cackling barnyard sounds into our TV sets.
We all need new TV sets the right wing media can't get their hands on, that's obvious.
The missed point about Dean and the scream is that he had already been beaten handily in Iowa BEFORE he did that. It was already over, Democrats chickened out on the whole anti-war thing.
it doesn't matter whether he had been beaten. the iowa caucuses are considered the beginning of the season [why i don't know, they are not a primary], and if he had any chance at a comeback, the press finished that off. and the fact that tommy makes some mocking reference to "turning our tv sets up" ignores the fact that it was presented as an accurate representation of the event when it was not. i've seen a "live" shot, crowd noise included, from the back of the room and you can't even hear dean. just more fox fakery and the rest of the media went along with it.
I agree that the media overplayed the Dean scream, but I still believe it's relevent to note that he was handily beaten in Iowa prior to that and he had lost his momentum. He most likely would not have recovered. Of course that isn't a certainty.
it doesn't matter. and it was not just the media overplaying it. it went far beyond any fair comment.
this link contains a study where students at three different colleges were shown two different versions of dean's speech. one the close-up [cu] version, which is what the media concentrated on. two, the audience perspective [ap] version shot by someone with a camera from the back of the room. those who viewed the [cu] version consistently rated dean more negatively in a series of questions on his personality.
http://courses.ttu.edu/hdfs3390-reifman/deandemo.htm
"This is serious stuff - remember, as so many here have said, Dean's "scream" was manufactured by the media, they turned up the volume on our TV sets so Dean just sounded hysterical."
Just checking, but you are joking, right? You do know that an audio feed can be isolated from surrounding noise, and it has nothing to do with our TV sets. I hope.
I thought Republicans WANTED to run against Dean in 2004? Why would the Right Wing media sabatage their own partys wishes?
Did I ever say that? I don't remember it.
It's not the sort of thing where a lack of motive can suggest it didn't happen. It did happen, for whatever reason. The noise from the crowd was overwhelming, but you would never think that from looking at the tape.
Saying that it did happen "for whatever reason" is something I can strongly agree with. Yes, it did happen.
Saying it happened because the media is a tool of the Republican Party is far more speculative, but I read that sometimes also. Not from you but it's a recurring theme around here.
Having done some memory refreshing about the incident, it seems like this wasn't a matter of sound mixing after the fact, but how it actually played out live because of a specific isolated microphone.
Still, as you say, it was overplayed. And I find it hard to believe that nobody notified CNN of the circumstances. It doesn't necessarily have to do with the media being biased to the right, they can be criticized for being lazy and/or more interested in ratings than the truth.
CNN admitted they overplayed it, but not that the scream was essentially taken out of context:""It was a big story, but the challenge in a 24-hour news network is that you try to keep all of your different viewers throughout the day informed without overdoing it," said Princell Hair, CNN's general manager."
ABC ran a Diane Sawyer report talking about how the audience could hardly hear the scream over the noise...once.
the dean scream started with faux news and the new york post, another murdoch creation, which ran the headline "dean meltdown". the rest of the media jumped on within a couple days. is dean nuts was the general theme.
The Republicans did ~not~ want to run against Howard Dean. He needed to be taken out and replaced with someone they could beat (up) and who wouldn't fight back. (Skull-and-bones Kerry didn't defend against the Swift Boaters and certainly didn't contest the Ohio results when there was ample evidence of election misdeeds.)
Why was Dean taken out? Aside from his really strong grass-roots support who aren't as predictable as corporate donors in voting for corporate interests, Dean made a couple of off-hand comments about the need to thoroughly investigate 9/11.
9/11 could certainly be made into a campaign tool (9/11, danger, homeland security, fear...), but it shouldn't be used even in the slightest to explore the truth of 9/11, which would expose the Bush Administration as criminals.
[speculation]The same electronic election fraud used to beat Kerry may have been first used in Iowa and N.H. to knock out Dean.[/speculation]
What amazes me about the official 9/11 story is that, if there be any shred of truth that Arab hijackers commandeered planes, circumvented from the air FAA ground procedures for handling such situations, nullified our national defenses, and pulverized three buildings at free-fall speeds in defiance to laws of nature, then WE SHOULDN'T BE HUNTING MUSLIMS... We should be bowing down and worshipping them, for their Allah has obviously proven himself to be greater than our God.
Alas, as with 100% of Bush's policy decisions, the decision-maker has screwed the pooch regarding this Christian-Islamic war he started.
Of course, if there be lies, misdeeds, and cover-ups to the official 9/11 story, well... you'll be safe to continue believing in your God, providing you act on those convictions and tar-and-feather the true 9/11 culprits.
I'm a registered Democrat, but am most impressed with Ron Paul, whom we need to rectify the wayward course of US government and return us to State's rights and a sound Constitution.
Tommy,
You're cracking me up...even though the pedantic one whiffed completely on understanding your post...oh well, he also missed the ocean rising 17 feet.
He does seem to be mocking the idea that such a thing could be manufactured, doesn't he? How did you interpret it?
Wes,
I am glad that you are taking me seriously here.....I now sit by TV volume control with diligent suspicion that the evil rightwing media will turn it up or down at their whim! A joke? Harumph, I think not.
Okay... great deflection (or whatever that was)... But, how about back to the point - which, in my mind, are these right wing 'pundits' playing up this stupidity... like it's supposed to mean anything?
And, ah... just how did Dean's yell get strewn all over the airwaves anyhow? It was all a mistake, right? Someone pushed the wrong button? You have a wonderfully jaundiced eye all for all things 'liberal' Tommy. Conservatives...? well, they get a high benefit of doubt. Doesn't seem very equal to me at times... for one who perpetually claims that MMFA is being biased.
I'm just sayin'...
Tommy,
Darn right...we have to keep our eye on those crafty rightwing media bastards. Not only am I going to keep a sharp eye on that volume control...but I'm going to patrol that cable connection on my pole out back.
Who would have thought that Cox Cable's bundling offers would include a trojan horse...full of right wing propaganda and tricks...poor Howard.
Yes brilliant, no one controls the volume control on your tv. How long did it take you boys to figure that out?
Now if you study real hard and stop taking stupid pills you will learn that audio in any sort of programming, that comes thru your tv is manipulated in many different ways including volume. Maybe you cracker jacks have noticed that tv commericials are often much louder than the programming they interrupt. Did you think "How'd they do that?" How did the advertiser come thru onto my tv and turn up the volume control?"
Brabantio describes an additional manner in which audio can be manipulated. Sounds can be isolated, which is what they did with Dean. He was addressing a huge cheering crowd and the wildly cheering crowd part of the audio was removed. That sound was completely manipulated, it was no where near what actually occured at the event and it was used to smear Dean. But I am sure you don't care since you are right now putting aluminum foil on your cable wires so the liberal media can't muck with your regularly scheduled programming.
Oh, but they're not really saying that you have to be a conspiracy nut to believe that such manufacturing can be done. They're just joking around.
As to what other point they could possibly be making with such jokes, well, they don't want to answer that. Go figure.
Brab, maybe they think the little people are actually in their TV. That would explain the concept of re-mixing audio being too complex.
The mocking comments made by Wesley and Tommy are particularly stupid considering the fact that many media outlets actually did broadcast Dean's scream isolated from the crowd noise. Fox's version of the clip eliminated the crowd noise altogether. I believe The Daily Show did a bit that compared the different versions.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I see this as the curtain being drawn on the pathetic "Wizard." The mystery about their magic is now revealed as little more than a spitefull trick.
When Hillary laughed it was right on cue as the propagandist Chris Wallace began her interview with an accusation of her and her husband being hyper partisan! Like that discription fits the Clintons and not Fox!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Fox should just separate its news channel from the "entertainment" of FoxFriends, Hannity & Colmes, etc. It's just ugh, ugh, ugh. I don't care if I agree with them on a particular point or not, it's just obnoxious to watch. It's Regis/Springer for conservatives.
With all due respect, is this site gonna go nuts every time Hillary (assuming she's elected) gets spoofed on SNL? I know it's on a news channel, but this show is meant to be taken lightly.
Fox News, Real Journalism, Fair and Balanced*
(*Except for our morning comedy show.)
Heh, good point, see my post above the other.
From the official SNL website:
"NBC's Emmy Award-winning late-night comedy showcase"
I don't see "journalism" or "fairness" or "balance" anywhere.
Um, no.
Fox & Friends is one of the more sneaky bits of programming that Fox has. Unlike the pundit shows and the blowhards, F&F tries real hard to pretend that it has no agenda. It's loaded up with all that "Aw shucks, we're just regular folks chewin' the fat here" flavor that conservatives love to whip out to prove they're "on your side." The blonde bimbo and himbo feign below average intelligence to make it seem like whatever they are saying is just common sense that even they can see.
It's insidious and subtle propoganda at its finest, make no mistake.
Moon, I am amazed that for all the supposed intelligent conservative posters (that literally seem to live on this site they hate sooo much) that miss the subtlety of reichwing propaganda. They think propaganda is supposed to sound like Hitler screaming into a microphone waving his fist in the air or some petty dictator in some banana republic who owns the tv and radio stations that run "Our leader is great" programming 24/7.
If nothing else, we in this country have learned the art of marketing and the conservative, right wing monopoly of ownership has given them the greatest power the world has ever seen and they are utilizing everything they have learned from years of practive to control the message and the medium. The fact that they claim otherwise shows how they are either a) completely ignorant or b) Very aware and doing everything in their power to spin, deflect or distract. Tommy, Kevin, Wesley and company are hired trolls who do everything in their power to defuse, deflect and confuse posters here at every opportunity.
Wake up sheeple!!
Doocy: "I don't know if we have it [the audio of Hillary]...". Sure. Then .03 seconds later we hear it.
Then it's "Edwards $400 haircut".
Then they just happen to have Howard Dean audio, and then it's the so-called "cackle" once again.
You can see the obnoxiously smug Friends of Fox and the repugnant Luntz restraining their giggles over their "humor", and practically high-fiving themselves over their three-man pile-on.
Is their any difference between this purported "news" program and the despicable right-wing propagandists like Limbaugh and O'Reilly besides a weather segment?
The Dean Scream was a low point, obviously one of many, for the American news media. An excited exhalation over a cheering crowd during a raucous campaign speech was isolated to demonstrate that Dean was somehow mentally unstable. Wikipedia has a fairly good coverage of the scream itself, as well as the absurd accompanying media frenzy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean#Iowa_results_and_the_.22Dean_Scream.22
Yeah Dean didn't raise his voice at all until that scream.
I also have a bridge you might be interested in..
Yes, his voice was elevated throughout, including during the infamous scream. It frequently happens during loud campaign events. How it rated an estimated 633 showings on cable and network news over the next four days, as if it was somehow newsworthy or a sign that he wasn't a viable candidate (even unstable), seems to me a prime example of media fecklessness.
i saw it for a couple weeks after, being discussed on the sunday pundit shows. it was all "is dean really nuts?", but never a mention that it was not a true representation of the event.
"Yeah Dean didn't raise his voice at all until that scream."
But no one said that Dean didn't raise his voice, did they?
When someone accuses someone else of "Dan Quayling" themselves.....
Oof, thems fightin words. Potatoe.... :-)
But at least Quayle protected us from the menace that was Murphy Brown.
So desperate is the right to hamper Sen. Clinton’s campaign, that they will grasp for any straw man that only a delusional mind would create. How crazy it must drive you, that the Clintons, in their brilliance, are always 10 steps ahead of your petty idiotic nit picking.
Bill is that you?
Or is this Hillary?
;-)
That is nothing compared to what Crazy Annie told Donny Deutsch last night claiming christians are purified jews. that is a whole lot more offebnsive than individual mannerisms. DD was really po'd and rightly so.
Unfortunately the Christians as "completed Jews" is a standard meme in some fundamentalist circles, mainly for Jews who convert to Christianity. From your description, Coulter's phrase sounds like she is creating a hierarchy in which Jews are inferior to Christians. If Christians are purified Jews in her eyes, are Jews impure Christians?
I would like to know when crazy Annie became an expert in christianity ? I would like to ask her what is her favorite bible passage.
What I hear repeatedly around here is "how dare these right wing nut jobs" take offense at mmfa exposing them by simply showing their exact words.
But FOX playing the tape of her cackle is different? Not hardly.
The laugh is contrived and phony...just like Clinton.
Excellent point Wes, let MMFA play rightwinger's words back to them and say "There, take that!".......yet when Hillary's laugh is replayed, foul is cried. Oh, the inconsistency........
Nice use of the passive.
Did Media Matters 'cry foul'? No, they quoted and replayed the comments. Like so many others, you seem to equate quotation with assault.
Oh but 'foul is cried.' Some commenters object. And of course thar, by O'Reilly rules, is just the same as if David Brock said them to Katie Couric.
do you think yjsy if you keep talkkin about Media Matters' 'attacks' and'assaults' and 'support for Hillary' that we'll believe it.Even here? Or do your efforts to be reasonable just get too much for you, and let loose with a good old fashioned distortion?
I'd say it would be a case of poor manners if Brock and mmfa didn't support her run for the most important job in the country...after all...she helped started this website.
They don't support a particular candidate; they support a progressive agenda.
NO, not a good point.
Foul is cried when a purportedly 'fair and balanced' news organization turns Hillary's laugh into a campaign issue. Need I remind you, her laughing was in response to a ridiculous question. The apple has fallen far from the tree in the Wallace family.
Are you seriously comparing how someone laughs with someone making statements.
Deep, very deep.
Is there like a good tommy and an evil tommy, and today the evil tommy is speaking.
Maybe Karl Rove gave good Tommy the day off for a long weekend.
no, there's only the tommy with nothing better to do. wasting all that valuable oxygen.
Replaying, isolating, even LOOPING a "laugh" or a "scream" is the epitome of being taken out of context. A laugh in itself has no context; it is a REACTION to some other event.
To be fair, though, COMEDY productions will sometimes use the technique.
Having FOX NEWS self-identify as a COMEDY network is, in my opinion, a refreshing development. Maybe they can finally ditch their ludicrous "Fair and Balanced" claim, and start wearing big red noses and big floppy shoes.
TRUTH IN ADVERTISING.
"The laugh is contrived and phony...just like Clinton."
I'm sure your pre-existing opinion of her doesn't influence that opinion at all.
And when, pray tell us, did Media Matters ever hihglight audio or a transcript of a Republican candidate simply laughing in order to mock them as a "contrived phony"?
You're correct. My pre-existing opinion of Clinton is that she is a phony. The cackle did nothing to change my opinion.
What a surprise.
When you get some time, send that really long list of Republican candidates whose "contrived" laughter Media Matters has played back solely to mock them and their credibility.
He didn't say Republican candidates, he said the rightwing.....referencing how the defense here is always "it's their exact words". Yet this is Clinton's exact laugh.....hence the double standard here.
Words actually say something. If they are hateful or further misinformation, then they are relevant to be quoted and corrected.
Making fun of someone for a less-than-melodious laugh (and ignoring the reasons why someone was mocking you with it) is not journalism, it's kindergartenish.
Not to mention, didn't Brit Hume call her laugh "disarming" and "attractive" before he got the GOP talking points on it??
The GOP media has nothing else to talk about . They are at a point where they will say anything to derail her campaign with silly stiff like her laugh. they have no ideas and no agenda. All they know is that they hate her . They hate what her and her husband are.
Think of what motivates the GOP towards "hating" Hillary.
It's not that she's ideologically different, it's not that there is any way she could be more harmful to America than the current Administration.
It's two things, and stronger motivators could hardly be imagined. First, the GOP have a gravy-train going which currently funnels TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars to Rightwing cronies. A Hillary Administration would derail that.
Second, a Hillary-appointed Justice Department would awaken from its current Rip Van Winkle slumber, and the FODs (Friends of Dubya) would be facing tons of discomfort followed by prison time.
Either one separately would be much more motivation for criminal evasion than exists in most crime today. Witnesses and prosecutors have been "disappeared" for much, much less. The FOD could be depended upon to do ANYTHING to avoid the prospect of losing both cash and personal freedom.
It's not Hillary, it's what she REPRESENTS, and not for America, but for the FOD's own butts.
I'll get that list together as soon as a republican candidate goes on 5 sunday talk shows...and cackles like Hillary.
"I'll get that list together as soon as a republican candidate goes on 5 sunday talk shows...and cackles like Hillary"
No you won't.
Because you won't see or hear that candidate here on Media Matters being ridiculed and denigrated for the way they laugh.
So there won't be anything for you to compile your list from.
This would all be elemental to most people, but you seem to require repeated explanations.
Your argument is really, really pathetic and getting more so by the minute.
NO YOU WON'T!
You nailed that one Dave. You did it without any cheap shots about laughs or rebel yells.
I have yet to see that kind of despicable behavior here on Media Matters. Even that which is despicable is not always to be despised. I laugh when I hear Deans Yell, but I also understand the low blow that it was.
This is nothing! Tip of the iceburg! Things are going to get real ugly at Fox-Etc. on this presidential race.
This time I hope the SwiftBoat people get blown clean out of their Republican Waters.
Adding to what I wrote above:
You said
If Clinton, to present a hypothetical, calls Giuliani a "vicious attack dog", for example, then Fox is well within their rights to replay that audio and discuss her remarks. That's what Media Matters does, and I've never heard anyone here say that other people don't have the same rights to highlight misinformation as Media Matters.
But there is no misinformation, no smear, no false accusations in a laugh. That is why have never and will never see Media Matters do what Fox and Friends did---to a candidate, to a broadcaster or to a right-winger. They won't mock and ridicule someone's laughter as if it proves something.
In an attempt to apologize for Fox News, your very weakly thought-out charge of hypocrisy falls flat on its face.
Oh if only I could cackle like Hillary...instead I'll have to settle for a small chortle about naivete.
Good for you. One small chortle sounds like you're describing Einstein's Theory of Relativity compared to what you've written up until now.
I'll see your chortle about naiviete and raise you a chuckle about abject stupidity
Is that a single phony or are we discussing plurals? Just trying to follow the bouncing laugh.
This is another example of why FOX and Friends and the FOX News channel is a complete joke.
When Hillary laughed it was right on cue as the propagandist Chris Wallace began her interview with an accusation of her and her husband being hyper partisan! Like that discription fits the Clintons and not Fox!
Unfortunately, it was the FIFTH time she did it that day, all right after questions did didn't answer or danced around. It didn't work. Maybe taken on one single occasion she could get away with it, but taken in the total context of her performances that day, it came across as rehearsed and inappropriate. I mean, none of those questions was THAT funny.
It's an obvious attempt to remake the Ice Queen.
Correct, the talking heads of the Republans are going to be responsible for remaking the ICE QUEEN into Madam President. Sorry, doesn't the RightWing realize that the Rovian Dark Age is over. The voters are tired of all the hate from both sides. But the Head-in-the-Sand-Righties can grasp that concept. If so, they would have to take the sand out of their ears and open their eyes. And guess what, I really don't want her to be Madam President.
It didn't work.
I did work.
but taken in the total context of her performances that day, it came across as rehearsed and inappropriate.
I think it was rehearsed but it was perfectly appropriate.
It's too bad that you repube hypocrite screech monkeys are always... well... screeching about Hillary Clinton. You wanna see what a real phony (how's that for an oxymoron) laugh is like, look in the mirror.
The Republican biased media is sensitive to being laughed at because they feel it's their franchise to salaciously criticize, demonize, and laugh at the opposition. After all they are the defenders of the real Americans, and Democrats should know their place.
Wow. Really important peice of journalism here. War crime in progress, both parties supporting it, so let's argue about what a bunch of morons on FOX Lies said. Wow. The depth is totally amazing, you can see forever.
Total buzzkill, Dude.
Who...gives...a...flying...f@#k...this...has...nothing...to...do...with...public...policy.
Well, I can certainly see how the next occupant of the White House would be irrelevant to the conduct of public policy . . .
It's just that I (we?) love beating up on idiots and FoxLies, and this was the only opportunity to do either today, OK?
Fox & Friends
BIG sigh & yawn.....so glad I never watch this crap....
....I'm sure some R-winger is sitting on the edge of their seat just waiting for FAUX's latest spin.....AND, this is it??
sigh...I almost hope Hillary DOESN'T win,because the idea of putting up with 4 long years of the pointless, puerile,vindictive behavior exhibited by these drips is too painful to ponder:and they're JUST GETTING STARTED.