Politico called Clinton's Sunday-show laugh "calculated" and a "cackle," but Giuliani's laugh "good-natured[]"
SUMMARY: Reporting on Rudy Giuliani's December 9 appearance on Meet the Press, the Politico's Jonathan Martin asserted in a blog post that Giuliani "seemed to even good-naturedly mock and welcome [Tim] Russert's line of questions when the matter of" his business ventures' clients came up." By contrast, in Politico articles about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's September 23 appearances on all five Sunday talk shows, Mike Allen and John F. Harris wrote that Clinton's laugh "sounded like it was programmed by computer," and Ben Smith described Clinton's laugh as a "cackle."
Reporting on Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's December 9 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Politico senior political writer Jonathan Martin asserted in a blog post that the former New York City mayor "seemed to even good-naturedly mock and welcome [Meet the Press host Tim] Russert's line of questions when the matter of clients came up. When the moderator raised Bracewell & Giuliani's representation of the Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo and sought to tie the firm's work to Hugo Chavez, Giuliani laughed and said, 'that's a stretch.' When Russert continued, the candidate kept laughing and even clapped his hands as if to welcome the opportunity to respond." Martin cited only two examples of Giuliani's laughter in response to Russert's questions -- the Chavez question and an instance in which Giuliani quoted former New York City mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia (R) -- but there were several instances involving equally serious topics. Giuliani also laughed when Russert asked him why he "would do business with people who helped [September 11 mastermind] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." Russert cited a report by The Wall Street Journal that Giuliani's consulting firm, Giuliani Partners, has at some point had a contract with the government of Qatar, whose former Minister of Islamic Affairs and current emir reportedly assisted Mohammed in fleeing the United States in 1996 when Mohammed was under indictment for an alleged plot to blow up airplanes. Giuliani also laughed at Russert's assertion that "[a] Las Vegas developer that you worked with ... had a close partnership with [a] Hong Kong billionaire who was close to Kim Jong Il." The blog Talking Points Memo compiled a video montage of Giuliani's laughter during his Meet the Press appearance.
A December 10 New York Times article by reporters Michael Cooper and Marc Santora also noted Giuliani's reaction to Russert's question about Citgo but not the other examples of Giuliani laughing. Cooper and Santora asserted that Giuliani "displayed in the combative interview a lighter side, as he often does on the campaign trail. He even took a page from the playbook of a Democratic rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and laughed off tough questions."
By contrast, as Media Matters for America documented, in articles about Clinton's September 23 appearances on all five Sunday talk shows, Politico chief political correspondent Mike Allen and editor-in-chief John F. Harris wrote that Clinton's laugh "sounded like it was programmed by computer," and both Politico senior political writer Ben Smith and Times reporter Patrick Healy described Clinton's laugh as a "cackle." Healy further described her laughter in response to a question on health care from Bob Schieffer, host of CBS' Face the Nation, as "particularly calculated."
From Martin's December 9 Politico blog entry, titled "Smiling Rudy seems to survive tough 'Meet' ":
Defusing a steady stream of tough questions with a ready laugh and dose of humility, Rudy Giuliani used his softer side to emerge largely unscathed from his hour-long appearance on "Meet the Press" this morning.
Appearing on the closely watched show for the first time in more than three years, Giuliani was met with a succession of topics that could damage his campaign: his legal and consulting clients, his pre-9/11 security preparations, his resignation from the Iraq Study Group, his ties to Bernard Kerik and his use of security detail to protect his then-mistress, Judith Nathan.
Some of his responses may provide fodder to rival campaigns, but Giuliani did an important thing in keeping his cool and responding to Tim Russert's aggressive style with a mix of humor and contrition.
[...]
Similarly, when Russert pressed the former mayor about his lobbying the Bush administration to get his protege Kerik tapped to become Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ("That's a big misjudgment to make when you recommend someone to the president for that kind of a sensitive job"), Giuliani defended his record of performance in New York as related to the people he hired -- but also repeatedly took responsibility for pushing Kerik.
Then, with a laugh, he quoted the famed former New York mayor, Fiorello LaGuardia, "I don't make many mistakes, but when I make them they're big ones."
Earlier in the session, Giuliani seemed to even good-naturedly mock and welcome Russert's line of questions when the matter of clients came up.
When the moderator raised Bracewell & Giuliani's representation of the Venezuelan-owned oil company Citgo and sought to tie the firm's work to Hugo Chavez, Giuliani laughed and said, "that's a stretch." When Russert continued, the candidate kept laughing and even clapped his hands as if to welcome the opportunity to respond.
"They're not serious," Hizzoner, still smiling, said of the critics who point out his connection back to the anti-American regime.
Whether he was putting on a show or not, this is, for veteran watchers of New York politics, a Rudy that they hardly knew and a considerable departure from his combative style as prosecutor and mayor in the city. But Giuliani has kept what former mayor and Rudy hater Ed Koch calls his "nasty" side in check through most of this campaign, letting slip his signature Gotham bravado only with a sunny countenance.
His upbeat mien aside, Giuliani surely did not enjoy the grilling. Nearly every unsavory aspect of his public and personal life was raised -- topics that aren't new for those living the race but that may be unpleasant reminders of a seamier side of America's Mayor for others just tuning in.
From the December 10 New York Times article by Cooper and Santora:
Mr. Giuliani, known for testy responses to pointed questions as mayor, displayed in the combative interview a lighter side, as he often does on the campaign trail. He even took a page from the playbook of a Democratic rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and laughed off tough questions.
When the program's host, Tim Russert, asked Mr. Giuliani about the work that his firm did for Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, who has accused President Bush of genocide, and about other clients, Mr. Giuliani laughed hard, leading Mr. Russert to interject, "These are all accusations being made in a very serious way about your business."
By contrast, in a September 23 Politico article, Smith referred to Clinton's laughter on Fox News Sunday as "a signature cackle." In a post published on the New York Times' political blog The Caucus the same day, Healy wrote: "Mrs. Clinton generally did fine -- there were no major gaffes, no flashes of a chilly or combative side. When Republican attacks were mentioned, she stuck to her trademark belly-laugh -- though she overdid it a tad on CBS's 'Face the Nation.' "
Both the Times and the Politico -- in addition to several other news outlets -- continued their coverage of Clinton's laugh, with Healy writing a September 28 article headlined "Laughing Matters in Clinton Campaign" and a September 30 "Political Memo" headlined "The Clinton Conundrum: What's Behind the Laugh?" In the September 28 article, Healy described Clinton's laughter on the September 23 Sunday shows as "heavily caffeinated at times" and asserted that Clinton "less often but more notably, copes with the pressure by using The Cackle." As an example, Healy cited the Democratic presidential debate, during which Clinton "laughed [at a question] before responding, as if to minimize the matter." In both the September 28 and 30 articles, Healy described Clinton's laugh on CBS News' Face the Nation as "particularly calculated." From the September 28 article:
The weirdest moment was with Bob Schieffer on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" when he said to Mrs. Clinton, "you rolled out your new health care plan, something Republicans immediately said is going to lead to socialized medicine." She giggled, giggled some more, and then couldn't seem to stop giggling -- "Sorry, Bob," she said -- and finally unleashed the full Cackle.
The Schieffer moment seemed particularly calculated because Mrs. Clinton has most certainly not laughed, in other settings, when she has been accused of pursuing socialized medicine. She faced that accusation charge during a forum in Las Vegas this summer, for instance; she turned frosty and traded barbs with the audience member who made the accusation. It was clearly no laughing matter in that venue.
Allen and Harris' September 30 Politico article also discussed both Clinton's laugh and the media coverage of it: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) last week flew into a sudden burst of media wind shear. After months of mostly rosy portrayals of her campaign's political skill, discipline and inevitability, the storyline shifted abruptly to evasive answers, shady connections and a laugh that sounded like it was programmed by computer. ... The New York Times ran a Sunday story about what it called 'the Cackle' -- it is actually closer to a guffaw -- suggesting that it is the senator's technique for disarming persistent questioners."
From the December 9 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: The one thing that you did continue to participate in was your business. And I want to ask you some questions about that because it's received a lot of discussion over the last few weeks, particularly. Your involvement with the country of Qatar.
GIULIANI: Right.
RUSSERT: And here's an article that was written by The Wall Street Journal. "Giuliani could face questions about his business ties if he wins his party's nomination. The Qatar contract offers a window into the political -- potential complications. While Qatar is a U.S. ally, it has drawn scrutiny for its involvement in the U.S. effort to combat terrorism. In '96, the FBI went to Qatar to arrest Al Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then under indictment in New York for a plot to blow up U.S.-bound jetliners. But Mr. Mohammad slipped away, apparently tipped off by an Al Qaeda sympathizer in the Qatari government, U.S. officials told the bipartisan September 11th Commission. Mr. Mohammed went on to mastermind the September 11th, 2001, attacks."
Salon.com asked you this question: "Are you aware that the interior minister appointed in 2001 and reappointed this year by the emir of Qatar is Abdullah Al Thani, the former minister of Islamic affairs and a strict Wahhabi Muslim who has been identified in U.S. press and government reports as a protector of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?"
Are you?
GIULIANI: Am I aware of it?
RUSSERT: Yes.
GIULIANI: I -- I'm, I'm aware of it now.
RUSSERT: Why would you do business with people who helped Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
GIULIANI: The reality is that Qatar is an ally of the United States. There are a significant number of American troops that are stationed in Qatar. What we did for them and do for them is security for their facilities. And this is a country that is an ally of ours in the Middle East to the extent that it has a very significant number of American troops stationed there.
RUSSERT: But the emir of Qatar praised Hezbollah for their victory over Israel in Lebanon.
GIULIANI: The emir of Qatar also supports the United States, supported the United States, is one of our friends in the Middle East, is taking the grave risk -- the country of Qatar is taking the grave risk of having American soldiers there. When you go to Qatar, when you go to Doha -- and I have for security work -- you see a significant number of young Americans there. If you walk the streets of Doha, you can meet them, you can talk to them. They need security; the government there needs security. We're dealing with the same Islamic terrorist threat there as we do all over the world. It gave my company a great deal of expertise in Islamic terrorism, which is really necessary all over the world. So the reality is that we need to develop friends. We need to develop friends in the Middle East. We need --
RUSSERT: Robert --
GIULIANI: -- to -- we need to develop friendships with the Emirates. We need to develop friendships with Qatar, with Kuwait. These are countries that we have to get closer to. We should trade more with them, we should be involved more with them as we stand up to Islamic terrorism. And if they -- if they're asking an American company to help them deal with the Islamic terrorist threat in a more secure way -- and the people involved in this are people that are some of the biggest experts on Islamic terrorism who had been with the FBI, these people who were involved in this effort. This is a good thing to do. This is a thing that helps us kind of work on the other side of, "How do you remain on offense against Islamic terrorism?"
RUSSERT: Robert Baer, a CIA officer who had tracked Mohammed Khalid [sic], said that you are taking money from the same accounts that protected --
GIULIANI: That's --
RUSSERT: -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who then went on to mastermind September 11th.
GIULIANI: That's just totally wrong. And it's completely, it's completely distorted. The relationship is not with any of those people. The relationship is with a ministry that does training --
RUSSERT: Of the interior --
GIULIANI: No, it isn't.
RUSSERT: -- which Al Thani is the head of.
GIULIANI: It is not. The relationship is not like that.
RUSSERT: No involvement with him at all?
GIULIANI: We have never had any involvement with him at all, of any kind. None of the people that work with me have. No involvement with him. We have had significant involvement -- they have -- with people in that government. And the purpose of it again, Tim -- here's the purpose of it, generally speaking -- it's to secure that country against attack by Islamic terrorists. This is a kind of relationship -- I don't just mean for my company now. I'm out of the day-to-day operations of it. But this is the kind of relationship Americans want to have with Middle Eastern countries, working with them to protect them against possible Islamic threats. This is a country that's modernizing. It's a country that's moving in a direction that we want it to move in. Every single step like that in the Middle East is a dangerous step. You could look at the same kinds of things happening in the Emirates, and I'm somewhat familiar with that, also. This is the microcosm of what we need to happen in the rest of the Middle East. Countries like the Emirates and Qatar have loosened a lot of the things that we're uncomfortable about. You and I can have dinner there. We can have dinner there, and we can dress normally. There's no interference with the way in which we want to practice our religion or our customs or whatever. They're moving in a direction that is a modernizing direction.
RUSSERT: But Mr. --
GIULIANI: That creates a threat. That creates a threat. They did have a bombing a while back, and what they want is American expertise, American help in how to deal with that threat with some people who have been -- the people in the past, they're now retired -- who have tracked down some of these very Islamic terrorists.
RUSSERT: But it --
GIULIANI: It's kind of a very positive relationship.
RUSSERT: People are calling into question your judgment. They also cite that your law firm did work for Hugo Chavez, the head of Venezuela. They've now quit that, but they did represent Citgo, which is run by Hugo Chavez.
GIULIANI: Tim, that's a stretch.
RUSSERT: It's not.
GIULIANI: No, no, no --
RUSSERT: One more -- no, one more, and then I'm going to give you a chance on this. One more. A Las Vegas developer that you worked with who had a close partnership with Hong Kong billionaire who was close to Kim Jong Il. These are all accusations being made in a very serious way --
GIULIANI: They're not serious, Tim.
RUSSERT: -- about your business.
GIULIANI: Right.
RUSSERT: So in order to deal with all this, why not say to the American people, "These are all my clients. This is who I work for --
GIULIANI: OK. Let me --
RUSSERT: -- so you can know who I've been involved with and who might be trying to influence me if I ever became president."
GIULIANI: OK. First, let me see if I can address both of those. The relationship you're talking about with the Singapore company, it's a partnership that this company had independent of what we were doing for them, and I think the person involved, if it's correct, was a 1 percent owner that had no involvement with us, we never worked for, had nothing to do with. When you deal with clients and you take on the problems of clients and you try to help them, it may be that somewhere, someplace they did something that was questionable or arguably questionable. These are things people aren't even convicted of. So you can't vouch for every single thing they did. The thing that -- the things we have done with them are honorable, ethical, useful, and helpful.















So Politico is a good source when it discusses how Rudy billed NYC incorrectly for a trip to the Hamptons in 2000, but when they say this they are wrong? I am confused.
Yes, you are. If an news program misinforms or is biased inconsistently, its still being biased and misinforming.
Hang on everyone - stop the blogosphere!!! Sue is confused!!!
Yes, Sue.
When the Politico puts out a factual article that makes verifiable claims, that is laudable.
When the Politico characterizes a candidate's laugh as either "calculated" or "good-natured" depending on the candidate, that deserves attention.
What part of this don't you understand?
See below Steve, or is that too hard for you?
No need to be rude, Sue.
I didn't read down far enough before responding to your comment. I didn't reply out of malice or a desire to make fun of you.
Fair enough Steve, I apologize I was rude and I am sorry. Im testy today, i have a sore throat.
Is that condescension from someone who started this thread with an outright STUPID question? One anybody with the sense of a reasonably bright ten year old would realize was flat out ignorant?
It isnt about WHO said something it is about WHAT is said. Absolute LIBERALS are capable of furthering conservative misinformation. Imagine a world where if a source EVER got something right they might at another time get something WRONG. It really isnt that hard as long as you dont fall into that simplistic Manichean worldview where things are either 100% good or 100% evil.
You gotta be kidding here MMFA?
Sorry guys but I watched/listened to the entire video, & to even compare the two laughs is, well...laughable.
Sorry, Hillary's "laugh" does sound like a programmed cackle. Heck it sounds downright scary!
Giuliani's sounds good natured. Them is the facts.
Jeter
I am not a fan of Rudy and I agree with you. This is silly.
Right on J,
Hillary's laughing cackle was a misfired attempt to lighten up her image and rid the notion many have that she is cold and calculating.
Rudy's good natured laugh was to hide his discomfort at the toasting he was taking from Russert.
I agree. Hillary's laugh did sound phony, but I also think some of Giuliani's laughter here seems a little ...forced.
Rudys "laugh" was the silliest episode in unrehearsed comedy that I've ever seen. He giggled like a little school girl for practically the entire softball session with Russ.
Either a school girl or he rolled a fatty before the show.
Rudy laughed at things that werent' funny. Russ actually had to stop his questioning and tell this pinhead that he was asking a serious question. I could watch that interview a thousand times and get a kick out of it. It is going into my tape file next to the home run that once bounced off Jose Cansecos head and THEN over the fence.
The mischaracterization here is plain. Politico doesn't want you to SEE Rudy's giggling,. but only to read what THEY say. Rudy GIGliani was pure gold.
And not only that...Rudys eyes bug out like a comic book character right before he answers while giggling.
It's alien; but funny.
Rudy's good natured laugh was to hide his discomfort at the toasting he was taking from Russert
Exactly. He was uncomfortable, but still managed not to sound like a cackling loon.
If Rudy's laugh was for the purpose of hiding his discomfort, then isn't it fair to say that it was "calculated"?
Most politicians are calculating, these two included.
Then whoever described Hillary's laugh that way should do the same for Giuliani. They seem to acknowledge that it's not genuine (or possibly so, at least), but they phrase it much more charitably then they did for Hillary.
One explanation might be that Hillary's laugh was more of a broader pre-planned strategy to reshape her image, as I said. Giuliani's laugh was more spontaneous and reflexive, thus not as calculating as hers, or even in the same ballpark.
Since you don't know Hills or Rudy personally are you really in any place to judge either of their laughter for sincerity? All of this is highly speculative on your part. The theory you’ve outlined against HRC, in light of the known bias you have against her, is obviously going to lead you to believe in the worst possible scenario in her situation. You’re just using it to reinforce your already negative perception. I have to wonder why you’re willing to give Rudy a free pass on the laugh-o-meter, are you planning on voting for Rudy? Since you think HRC is such a slick, what do you think of the politician that tries to cash in on the tragedy of 9/11 every waking moment? Either way it should not matter how either of them laugh, as it isn’t something that should even factor into the equation.
At least that is how rightwing partisans like YOU see it. What a shock.
Rudy cackled like a little schoolgirl.
What's so hard to admit about that?
It is not hard for me to admit , but I think you are insulting school girls. To me Rudy sounded like a weasil.
Forget Mayor 9/11.
He ought to dye his hair red and call himself Tickle Me Rudy.
Ah, Jeter, ever the apologist.
Giuliani, good natured? I guess he's just joking around here. And I guess he was just giving this ferret owner some fatherly advice.
"Good natured". Rudy Giuliani is the last person on earth who could be described as "good natured".
And George W. Bush was the guy "you'd like to have a beer with." How'd the "good natured" guy turn out that time, hmmm?
Considering Jeter has stated here that he'd never vote for Giuliani, I'd hardly call him an apologist...but whatever.
Considering jeter has many times expressed his distaste for "Hills" I wouldn't expect him to say "Hills" laughter compared favorably with Rudy's and I wasn't disappointed.
I've also expressed my distain for Rudy, saying many times that if it came down to a Rudy-Hillary race, I'd sit it out.
You're a Moonbat partisan, I'm a hell of a lot more fair & balanced.
So it's no shocker that you can't tell the difference between a cackle [Hillary] & an uncomfortable, but good natured sounding laugh [Rudy].
Turn up your hearing aid & put down the Kool-Aid Johnnie One Note.
Am I supposed to sticks and stones may break my bones or something like that?
Am I supposed to sticks and stones may break my bones or something like that?
Ah Johnnie, you could admit you were mistaken. But since you don't have the class to admit you're wrong, then I guess sticks & stones is about all we can expect from you.
Why don't you just admit you think I'm wrong and that you're mistaken.
Your negative posts about Guiliani could fill a thimble.
Your negative posts, including the one in this thread, about "Hills" as you like to disparagingly call her probably have a dedicated server of their own here at MMFA.,
Well Johnnie One Note, I know from your posts here you're a Hills lover, so seeing things clearly without bias is difficult for ya.
The fact remains, Hillary cackled. Rudy didn't. Facts, my boy.
Other facts you ignore, I have never said a nice word here about Rudy, but have on occasion, despite my dislike of Hillary, said a nice word or two about her.
Again, you lack any class to admit you goofed. I saw you did that the other day with Brab on another thread. Jumping to conclusions ain't nice Johnnie...and it pisses folks off.
The fact remains, Hillary cackled. Rudy didn't. Facts, my boy.
The fact is, the preceeding is only an opinion, and has no fact contained within it.
Facts, my boy, are objectively verifiable, and are not subjective.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts."
Easy my boy, go listen to tape of the Hillary cackle, then listen to the video provided here of Rudy laughing.
Then try to be honest.
Hillary's laugh is a loud annoying scary cackle.
Rudy sounds uncomfortable, but manages to get his laugh to sound good natured.
Again, them is the facts.
Jeter I think the only fact to be found in this entire thread is that analyzing a politician’s laughter for some type of insight into their psyche is a waste of time. I would add that a creditable media source really wouldn't bother. I would also like to point out that since you don't know Hills or Rudy personally, who are you to judge the sincerity of their laughter? Maybe laughing like a robot or giggling like a school girl is the real them? And a better question still would be who really cares?
Jeter ... with all due respect, you're out in left field here ...maybe your beloved Yankees could give you a tryout? :)
Hillary's laugh was an entirely appropriate response to an asinine question from a known right-wing hack, Chris Wallace. It made him look like the idiot and right-wing waterboy he is.
I'm no Hillary fan ... but if this is the best you guys can do ... making fun of a laugh ... you're in deep doo-doo. The point of the article is that an anti-Hillary bias colors the coverage of this kind of stuff.
SportsGuy,
Hillary laughing at Wallace isn't the issue. She should have laughed at him!
It's that her laugh sounded rehearsed, programmed and came out like a loud, annoying scary cackle.
Of course the only reason we're even still discussing this, is that MMFA desperately wanted to say hey Rudy cackled too...which he did not. But this is kind of a stupid topic, don't ya think? ;-)
I hope neither Rudy or Hillary win their Party's nomination...
Thanks, Jeter, but given your professed dislike for Hillary, I think you have to admit that your opinion of the laugh might be colored by that. I don't know how you "rehearse" a laugh - how could she know in advance there would be a laugh-worthy question? I found the laugh completely appropriate and fitting. I'd laugh at some of the things these idiot wingnuts ask, too. And to be honest, I'm not sure Hills gives a damn what the chattering brain donors on Fox think of her laugh.
Sportsguy,
My professed dislike for both Hillary & Rudy actually makes me a neutral observer. So there's nothing "colored" in my response, can you say the same thing?
As far as rehearsed laughter goes, I'm fairly certain Hillary & her crew had a game plan to laugh in the face of certain questions. The lady simply overdid her laughter, in the sense that it came out as a shrill cackle.
Rudy appears to be a more skilled laugher ;-)
Stevo,
I said his LAUGH sounded good natured...I did not say the man's personality was.
Try not to make stuff up..ok?
And Tommy is correct, I've stated here many times that I would never vote for Rudy.
Do you think Rudy's a "nice guy" or not? If not, then his "good natured" laugh is just as contrived as you accuse Hillary's of being.
If you think he is actually a nice guy, I suggest you take another look at those videos I linked. Rudy Giuliani simply cannot stand to be challenged. He is compelled to come down hard on anyone who questions his authority. A character trait we absolutely don't need in the next occupant of the Oval Office.
But in any case, spending time dissecting a candidate's laugh is the most pointless waste of time I can imagine. You have your opinion on that subject, others have theirs, and they're all equally valid as opinions--and equally irrelevant.
Steve,
As I've expressed here before I don't like Rudy & would never vote for the man. Was his laugh as contrived as Hillary's? Probably. But as I wrote to Sportsguy, he's just better skilled at it [I'm making a joke here.]
Hillary came off sounding loud & shrill. Rudy didn't. Politico reported it as such.
There are far more important things to know about Giuliani than his f**king laugh, Jeter.
The man would nuke Iran the first chance he got: his foreign policy advisors consist of the people who were too crazy to make Bush's team.
An attack on Iran would engulf the entire Middle East and possibly lead to another World War.
Yet here you are, joking about how you think that even if his laugh was completely phony, at least it sounded genuine. Because that's what we need in our leaders, after all: lying sociopaths who are better at faking empathy than the bunch we have now.
You're entitled to your opinion on the relative merits of Hillary Clinton's laugh versus Rudy Giuliani's, as is the Politico, but the greater point is that a candidate's laugh shouldn't be the subject of serious political discussion.
I notice you say you don't like Rudy but don't give any reasons why. Care to elaborate?
Steve
Jeter has said numerous times he would never vote for Rudy. The board needs less of the attacks toward eachother and more dialogue.
I assume you mean something like this:
...You're a Moonbat partisan, I'm a hell of a lot more fair & balanced....
Turn up your hearing aid & put down the Kool-Aid Johnnie One Note.
- JETER2 / Tuesday December 11, 2007 04:07:23 PM EST - Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
Here's the deal Johnnie One Note. You wise off, or misrepresent my views, or make assumptions about me or my opinions without facts to back you up then I'll treat you with disrespect.
You've probably noticed that I'm very respectful to the majority of posters here, & them to me.
You simply don't fall into that category.
I really don't care either way. I see you for what you really are.
I was just concerned jlyons might be offended by your gibberish.
Yeah you care Johnnie, but I'm gonna go on treating you like the moron you are.
Don't worry about JLyon, she & I are buds.
She certainly leaped to your defense! How tight are you two?
Conley,
Jlyons gets picked on around here sometimes, & I've come to her defense several times. She has often come to mine.
Cons like myself need all the love & kindness we can get here. I've been defended here by Libs & Cons.
I always try to return the favor.
C'mon, guys. The MEDIA has their narrative to follow, and it's pretty simple.
Democratic candidates are to be viewed through the prism of ridicule, missing no opportunity to characterize them as "phony" and "unfit for office".
Conversely, this "Liberal" MEDIA is to take every opportunity to characterize Republican candidates as human, likable, and very deserving of votes.
What's so hard to understand?
Giuliani's sounds good natured. Them is the facts.
The fact is there is nothing good-natured about Rudy Giuliani. He's a swarmy, lying, cross-dressing, adulterous hypocrite who made millions on the blood of the 9/11 victims.
No Jeter darling that is not a fact, that is your and Politico's opinion. The sound of some one's laughter and voice quality is a matter of opinion. For instance I find Chris Matthew’s voice and loquaciousness quite annoying, but obviously lots of folks have no problem with it.
Lynn honey :-)
I agree with you about Matthews. His voice can sound shrill at times. He talks over his guests, occasionally laughs inappropriately, speaks without thinking...but I like his show.
However I'm amused that folks here are reluctant to admit Hillary's laugh was a loud, programmed, annoying scary cackle. Like nails scratching against a blackboard would be a good description. And quite frankly, Rudy's laugh doesn't come close to that. His sounded a tad uncomfortable, but came off sounding good natured. Let's chauk it up to him being a better acter than Hillary....
Of course that we're even chatting about "laughs" just shows how silly Politics 2007 has become. But MMFA has to shoulder the blame for bringing it up again. They were, IMO, desperate to prove that Politico wasn't being fair, when in fact the two laughs simply aren't comparable.
Well it's time for me to pour myself a cup of coffee & retire to my recliner to watch Hardball ;-)
Why is it MMFA's fault that Politico is giving time to the way a candidate laughs? It's funny how many times I hear people talk about issues like these to judge political figures. They know next to nothing about the issues, so they base their vote on the superficial. I’ve had the “I won't vote for X because I don't like them” conversation more times then I really care to think about. Top it off with an obvious bias on the part of Politico. Are you comfortable judging sincerity of someone’s actions when you don’t know them personally? I would put this as pandering to the same category of people that voted for Bush because they could imagine having a beer with him. It’s a stupid issue to be discussing in the first place, but the blame lies with media outlets that focus on the superficial, not on MMFA for pointing it out.
Reporting on Rudy Giuliani's December 9 appearance on Meet the Press, the Politico's Jonathan Martin asserted in a blog post that Giuliani "seemed to even good-naturedly mock and welcome [Tim] Russert's line of questions when the matter of" his business ventures' clients came up."
Ok, nothing wrong with this IMO. I saw part of the interview on Sunday, & watched the video here. The description offered was valid. I myself thought I detected a bit of discomfort on Giuliani's part, but he didn't cackle. He did his best to laugh good-naturedly. And Politico was simply describing Rudy's demeanor & reactions during the interview.
By contrast Hillary's laugh sounded forced, loud, & came off as a scary cackle. And was reported as such.
MMFA seems to be taking umbrage with what then?
Had Rudy cackled like a madman & it wasn't reported as such then MMFA would have a reason to call foul. But it just didn't happen that way. So yes, in this instance MMFA is groping around for something that isn't there & trying to make an issue out of something that doesn't exist.
As I've written here a few times already, it's kind of sad we're so hung up on the superficial stuff, like judging a candidates laughter, BUT it was MMFA that brought it up this time in a lame attempt to claim some sort of nefarious motive or bias on Politico's part.
That is a stretch. In fact, it's a joke.
Jeter,
How would you catagorize his answer to the question?
MHK, I'm not a Rudy fan. I probably dislike him as much as I dislike Hillary.
Both are power hungry, coreless, & know how to use double-speak & give non-answers.
In this instance I thought Rudy's answers were suspect & incomplete. Much like Hillary's can be on occasion.
That aside, Rudy managed to skillfully laugh & may have fooled even Politico into thinking it was natural, good-natured & not contrived. Hillary couldn't pull it off.
I agree it's not a cackle with Giuiani. My issue is that even the articles themselves saw the discomfort behind the laugh, but they downplayed it. Why don't they come out and call it "calculated", or better yet, "phony"?
Part of the problem I have with this is that Rudy didn't even answer the question posed to him. Politico is giving Rudy cover by focusing on his "good natured" laugh instead of his lack of a response.
Brab,
Had I written the piece for Politico I might have said Rudy seemed to sometimes exhibit a strained somewhat uncomfortable demeanor but still managed to produce good-natured laughter when Russert pressed him on several issues.
Again, Hillary's laughter sounded contrived or forced. She overdid it. It sounded like a loud shrill cackle. Rudy's laugh might have been phony as well, but didn't sound quite as forced or like a madman cackling.
In this instance I think MMFA is attempting to conclude that Politico has some sort of agenda. I simply think that they wrote this as they saw it & there is no reason for MMFA to make a comparison to Hillary, except to nit pick.
Again, I'm not talking about "cackling". Everyone here seems to admit that it's contrived, but that's downplayed while it wasn't for Hillary. No matter what it sounded like (and Giuliani did an awful lot of laughing, it could easily be described as excessive by amount), they should treat the candidates the same. "Calculated" is a criticism for Hillary, but when Giuliani does it then that's just politics as usual.
Ok Jeter, since numerous posters here have said they did not perceive the two laughs like you or politico did, yet you still insist on the fact that the two laughs were how you perceived them.. Then quantify forced, contrived, cackle, shrill etc. About the only term you use that I can see measuring is loudness. And of course we would have to agree on decible level of loudness before it becomes a fact her laugh was loud. Essentially what I'm saying is that you are using your perception (shrill, contrived, forced etc) as representing fact. Facts are objective (i.e. measurable) events. Shrillness is not such an event. Perception versus reality, you're confusing the two. Sort of reminds me of how a woman who is assertive is perceived as a b**ch whereas a man who is assertive is perceived as a "go-getter." And I have no ethical disclosures since, I won't be voting for either of the laughers.
Ah, sweetie, you're a glutton for punishment. :)
Maybe what's silly is that anyone is comparing the two laughs in the first place as a sign of which candidate is better placed to run your country.
Who give a flying monkeys how either HC or RG laugh? Really?
Anyone who makes the comparison under the guise of a journalist needs to find a new job.
Fairs fair Sue, you confuse alot of people too.
Rudy's actions exsist as actual physically verifiable things. Iterpitations of someones laugh as the same type of thing, exsists only inside someones brain. Shortly, evidence versis opinion.
We all accept things from sources we trust. In Politico's case each item should be weighed, and evaluated. Not by ideological grounds (this is hard for many people to do), but by its relationship to previous information that has been shown to be truthful.
The laugh thing and the haircut thing are opinions from people, who have been shown to be loosely attached to our comon reality.
We all accept things from sources we trust. In Politico's case each item should be weighed, and evaluated. Ok, fair, just from reading this site Politico is as biased as FOX News, but I guess I am wrong.
... and I thought the O'Reilly children's book thread was boring.
;-)
So boring that you posted five times to the O"Reilly thread?
Thanks for counting. I'm flattered.
Sometimes I simply feel the need to reply; case in point. ;-)
Too bad you seldom feel the need to be insightful and interesting.
Too bad you seldom feel the need to be insightful and interesting.
Maybe that's beyond AA's capabilities...
Maybe this will make it less boring for you:
Imagine Guiliani dealing with Ahmadinejad and cackling like a schoolgirl like he did when he felt a little pressure from Russert on Sunday.
Thanks.
Didn't help.
HEHEHEHE!!!... STOP IT TIMMY!!!
How's that?
Giulliani makes up by blinking all the time( probably every time he fibs or maneuvers around the question .
Maybe Giggliani has a thing for Gordie Howe.
Actually Wolf you may be on to something here.
I once saw someone on TV who said you could tell if someone was lying if their blinking was excessive. Can't remember where or when I heard it, but I'll google around later when I have an extra minute or two.
Clinton's was calculated and cackle-y. Giuliani's was mocking as well, regardless of its tone.
Personally, I think both candidates successfully knocked each questioner off their pedestal.
If MMfA has a problem with subjective judgements, they should stop posting Olbermann and their own editorials.
Unless you're a New Yorker you won't know Guiliani cackled more in his hour with Russert than he did in his entire 8 years as mayor of this great city.
That's an obtuse statement. Is cackling as Mayor of NYC a good thing or bad thing?
I know nobody wants to hear this, and it pains me to say it . . . but Rudy's fake laugh is a lot more believable than Hillary's. And I say this as someone who is not a Hillary supporter, but who would rather vote her Queen than cast a vote for the former mayor.
Laugh Analysis? Really? It was dumb when they did it with Hillary and it's still dumb with Rudy as the subject.
We need to demand that the idiot talking heads stop treating the political process as some sort of wierd cross between a reality show and TMZ or we are going to keep getting the worst possible candidates.
Too bad they don't analyze what they say more often as they analyze how they say it.
After watching the clip I like the laugh, I wish more politicians laughed at media types but that's not the point. This laugh is not spotlighted because it was laughed but rather the way that laugh was covered in the MSM. Male Democrat goes giggly during questioning like that and he is toast in the media, forget Fox, everyone would be in on this. He'd be lambasted, ridiculed and if it was Hillary, and it was, she'd be called a cackler and a robot. It's just another example of the way the corporate media really leans and the Mayor gets a pass.
Has Hills used the laugh/cackle/bray anytime in the last month? I haven't seen it so that leads me to believe it was a focus group tactic to "soften" her hardpan image.
To my ear, Rudy's laugh sounds genuine enough at first, but becomes increasingly forced as Russert's questions continue. More teeth, bigger smile, some benignly exasperated hand gestures--all the better to trivialize the questions with. Maybe not a cackle, but about as calculated and unnatural as it gets.
Come on. They're all primped and coifed and coached like movie stars. And, like some movie stars some can act, some can't act. Rudy is just a better actor. The real problem as I see it is that they are BOTH career politicians. Jeez...hell of a career eh? Anyone think the founding fathers are rolling over in their collective graves? The way I see it anyone that covets power should be denied power. Politicians speak when their handlers want them to speak. Say what their handlers want them to say. Believe in what their handlers want them to believe.
Now to be fair I'm sure my "wide brush" paints some folks that shouldn't be painted. However with the less then subjective resources available to us the voting public, it's damn hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Just give me honesty...that's all I freakin want.
Please replace "subjective" with "objective". Yeah, I'm edumacated. ;o)