Scarborough to Maddow: "[Y]ou've got the Clinton cackle down, Rachel. I'm proud of you"
SUMMARY: Recalling previous media attention given to Sen. Hillary Clinton's laugh, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said to Air America Radio's Rachel Maddow: "[Y]ou might support Obama, but you've got the Clinton cackle down, Rachel. I'm proud of you."
On the July 3 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House, guest host Joe Scarborough said to Air America Radio host Rachel Maddow about her laugh: "[Y]ou might support [Sen. Barack] Obama, but you've got the Clinton cackle down, Rachel. I'm proud of you."
Commenters on Democratic Underground and Daily Kos noted the exchange that evening.
As Media Matters for America documented, after Sen. Hillary Clinton's appearance on all five Sunday political talk shows on September 23, 2007, political reporters and other media personalities seized on Clinton's laugh as a new subject of attention, with several media figures calling Clinton's laugh a "cackle." The media, including Scarborough and others on MSNBC, have also mocked Clinton on numerous occasions for the tone and volume of her voice.
The fixation on Clinton's laugh has persisted on MSNBC. For example, during the April 22 edition of MSNBC Live, guest host David Shuster said to senior campaign correspondent Tucker Carlson: "Before we get to predictions, Tucker, I want to present you something that actually was delivered to Chris Matthews today. But he's not here, and I stole it, and I'm giving it to you. ... It's a pen. It's 'Jabber Jaw Pens.' And when you listen to it here." At this point, Shuster pressed the top of the pen -- a likeness of Clinton's head -- and the mouth began to move as the pen began audibly laughing. After the pen stopped, Shuster continued: "[I]n honor of being on the air with you for the first time in a little while, I present you with a Hillary laughing pen." In response, Carlson stated: "I can't tell you, David, how much I appreciate this, how much I appreciate your going through Chris' mail while he's gone and how much I'm really going to miss that cackle. I hope it goes on forever. It's brought light to my life."
From the July 3 edition of MSNBC's Race for the White House:
MADDOW: I think the important thing to recognize here is there's a difference between taking a centrist position because it's good for the general election and changing his position. What I'm saying about this Iraq stuff is not that Barack Obama secretly has a lefty position on Iraq that nobody else recognizes. I'm saying that his position on Iraq is very centrist and has been all along and is not -- it's not changing.
This is the position that his campaign was taking through the primaries, and we have ascribed a much more liberal policy to him. But when you go back and you look at the tape, and when you go back and look at the statements from his campaign, all the way back through the spring, all the way back when they were attacking Hillary Clinton for having a plan for withdrawal that wasn't subject --
SCARBOROUGH: All right --
MADDOW: -- to conditions on the ground, it shows you that this is where he's been all along. You can call it centrist --
SCARBOROUGH: All right --
MADDOW: -- but it's still consistent.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Show of hands, show of hands. We've got to go to break, but show of hands -- we did this last night, we're going to do it tonight. How many agree with Rachel that Barack Obama was not saying we're going to get out of Iraq in 16 months to Charlie Gibson? Raise your hand if you agree with Rachel. OK. Rachel, you're looking at it in a different way.
MADDOW: The next time it's one against four --
SCARBOROUGH: For those of you listening on Air America, everybody kept their hands up.
MADDOW: Yeah. The next time it's one against four, me with four conservatives, I won't expect to win the next vote either.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, you know, I don't know that this has anything to do with --
NOAH OPPENHEIM (NBC Today senior producer and author): I'm a centrist.
SCARBOROUGH: -- I don't know that this has anything to do with conservatives or liberals, it has to do with the English language, and it certainly sounded clear enough to me.
[laughter]
SCARBOROUGH: You can keep laughing all you want, but here's the exact quote again as we go to break: Will you be out of Iraq in 16 months at -- we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. That's his campaign manager. And again, I would say most Americans of most ideological stripes would say that's exactly what he meant in that answer.
[laughter]
MADDOW: You're so wrong. I can't even hold it together. You're so wrong.
SCARBOROUGH: That's actually -- you've got the -- you might support Obama, but you've got the Clinton cackle down, Rachel. I'm proud of you. Coming up next, John McCain's running mate. What's he looking for? And is he considering an independent like Joe Lieberman for his number two? The Race returns right after this break.
Well, if I played for the other team, I'd totally go for Rachel, cackle or no. She's smart, beautiful and she has a killer smile.
And can I add that Joe Scarborough has a shrill voice, so who is he to complain about somebody's laugh. Apparently he ran out of arguments so he fell back on the "cackle".
Eh, typical.
So?
This is weak even for Media Matters. Must be a slow day for our benevolent (and highly partisan) media watchdogs.
I think this is just another cataloguing effort. Just recording another example of the media focusing on the trivial or sexist garbage instead of substance.
It is here likely to be referred to later as an example. Not much of a story, but it helps to demonstrate the pattern in the big picture view.
Apparently he ran out of arguments so he fell back on the "cackle".
I've noticed that Joe becomes nasty when challenged by women expressing their own opinions. His smarta**nasty response says something about Joe and it's not nice. Rachel doesn't take his crap but I'm still waiting for Mika to get feed up and tell Joe that acting like a bully diminishes his arguments.
All Joe Schmo managed to do was prove that Rachel is a superior wit and far more intelligent debater. Is he really arguing that perception is more valid than the hsitorical record? "We think he's flip-flopping, Rachel, no matter what the facts say so... we're right! Let's vote to see if we think we're right! Wow! We win! There you have it! Need more proof? You're wrong about Obama because you laugh like Clinton. Gotchya!"
"I don't think this has to do with liberal or conservative --" well, of course no one believe you would, skippy, you yourself chose the panel!
I've heard that, according to recent polls, only 20% agree with Maddow.
These guys sure get pouty when somebody occasionally has the proper response to their BS; Laughter (or cackling)
I've heard that, according to recent polls, only 20% agree with Maddow.
Because of the unpardonable sin of being an intelligent lesbian who makes many of her male cohorts look rather dumb...
Because of the unpardonable sin of being an intelligent lesbian who makes many of her male cohorts look rather dumb...
No need to throw out the homophobe card, unless that's all you have.
I gather what you're saying is that since she's gay, everyone has to agree with her opinion? And, if you don't agree with her opinion then you're a homophobe?
That says a lot for the position of the liberal concerning abilities in your particular trade... 'you don't need talent, only be different. then if anyone doesn't hire/like you then they will be sued/labeled'.
I've listened to her show, and, personally, I think she's a hack. She makes up material to back her position. When faced with adversity, she falls back on the ever-popular 'blame Bush/co' bantor. No facts needed on her show, just a 'blame Bush/co' mentality and everything is A-OK in her world.
I've listened to her show, and, personally, I think she's a hack.
You tend to toss that "hack" term around quite a bit, Philib. Mainly toward those like me who disagree with your inane opinions. People like Rachel Maddow and myself are NOT hacks - we're just smarter than you. Get over it. :-)
" 'you don't need talent, only be different. then if anyone doesn't hire/like you then they will be sued/labeled'."
Wow, I couldn't have nailed that one any more perfect! First response: "Mainly toward those like me who disagree with your inane opinions. People like Rachel Maddow and myself are NOT hacks - we're just smarter than you.". I don't 'like' her so you instantly 'label' me. Thanks for providing me with such amazing authenticity, writer. :-)
Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar with a Ph.D. in Political Science. What are your qualifications to call her a "hack," "Phil?"
Because your opinions here define the word "hack." They also define arguing from ignorance, but that's nothing to be proud of, either.
"What are your qualifications to call her a "hack," "Phil?" "
I'm a listener. If I had a PhD, then I'd have my own show too. And, you would be able to call me a hack any time you like. But, I wouldn't whine about it, like you do.
I don't 'like' her so you instantly 'label' me.
No, Phil. I label you because of your consistently under-par, mediocre, inane posts. It was not an "instant" process. You've earned that label over a prolonged period of time. I just wish you weren't as cluless as you are.....
Get over it and get premise that isn't flawed. Phil confuses ridicule with disagreement. I don't know where Phil is from, but where I come from making fun of a laugh sure as shit isn't the same thing as disagreeing with an argument.
I gather what you're saying is that since she's gay, everyone has to agree with her opinion? And, if you don't agree with her opinion then you're a homophobe?
Well, you need to gather your wits before you attempt to figure something out next time then.
It is not, and never has been, that one has to agree with someone because she's gay. It's that it's not okay to disagree with someone simply because they're gay. If you make fun of a person because they're gay, that's not okay. If someone attacks Rachel Maddow because she has a laugh that reminds them of Hillary's laugh, and rather than attacking Hillary's positions they are shallow like you and they make a personal attack on her laugh, then it's not okay.
Someone's laugh is personal. Attack their argument all you want. Disagree with their arguments all you want.
Your arguments are laughable. They're incredibly weak, and consistently you demonstrate that you don't have a clue. You provided a textbook example of your poor skills with your argument above where you leap to to the unsupported conclusion that some other poster suggested that one must agree with Rachel because of her sexuality. If you disagree with her position simply because she is gay, then it makes you a homophobe. The converse is not true - that you're a homophobe because you disagree with her position.
"Because of the unpardonable sin of being an intelligent lesbian who makes many of her male cohorts look rather dumb..."
Bottle, it wasn't me who brought talent and homosexuality into the arguement. Look at the above post before you blame me for dumb posting. This person is clearly claiming religion does not excuse a person for being homosexual. When the opposite is true. This person brings sexual preference into the arguement when that description is clearly not needed to fulfill his point. Because I asked for a clarification you state I'm being the 'bad poster'?? I think your opinion is way off base.
What are you going on about now?
I never said nor implied that you brought up the subject. What I did do is totally demolish your argument.
What I did do is totally demolish your argument.
EVERYBODY totally demolishes EVERY argument Philib ever posts here, BB. Yet he keeps coming back for us to demolish his arguments on a daily basis. I believe it was Einstein who once said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.....
"I never said nor implied that you brought up the subject."
Here: "You provided a textbook example of your poor skills with your argument above where you leap to to the unsupported conclusion that some other poster suggested that one must agree with Rachel because of her sexuality. "
My opinion of Rachel as stated: " I've listened to her show, and, personally, I think she's a hack. She makes up material to back her position. When faced with adversity, she falls back on the ever-popular 'blame Bush/co' bantor. No facts needed on her show, just a 'blame Bush/co' mentality and everything is A-OK in her world."
Now, please show where I claimed to convict her hackness on her sexuality or her laugh. I was asking for clarification and you whined that was where my opinion of her came from.
I missed the post where someone was talking about religion. Are you once again trying to make everything about religion?
"I missed the post where someone was talking about religion."
Of course you did, worrier.
Admittedly, it was just one episode, but it happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0C-4bm6Ilo
(Thanks to - TREMENDOUSSLOUCH for doing the leg work.)
Crispy, I would ask myself what I'm getting out of watching MSNBC. I stopped watching MSNBC and CNBC back when they fired Phil Donahue, Charles Grodin and Ashley Banfield because they weren't pro war. They even had a contract with Jesse Ventura to take Phil's place but paid off his contract (and didn't give him a show) when it was found out he was anti Iraq war. The "news" you see there and elsewhere on the teevee is highly censored.
So, why do you watch MSNBC daily?
Not people...it's not people disagreeing with Rachel, they're conservatives. Conservative pundits. They have no common sense.
Much like yourself the conservative pundit is an idiot, lacking in decency, cognition and humanity. They are capable of only of ridicule and emotional string tugging.
"Not people...it's not people disagreeing with Rachel, they're conservatives. Conservative pundits. They have no common sense.
Much like yourself the conservative pundit is an idiot, lacking in decency, cognition and humanity. They are capable of only of ridicule and emotional string tugging."
That's funny, round. You end your statement of "emotional string tugging" by "ridiculing" conservatives, then say conservatives are only capable of ridiculing and emotional string tugging. Are you a conservative?
P.S. Don't let writer see your miss-use of words (multiple 'of'), if he's consistant/fair then he will immediately slap your wrists.
Doing the baseless leaps of logic again I see.
You display your ignorance throughout your posts, including spelling and grammar errors. So, when another poster ridicules you for your inanity, they might include your spelling and grammar errors as part of that ridicule.
Not every posters' mistakes are so egregious that they demand ridicule. Yours are.
Get over yourself phony.
As for my grammar, syntax etc. I DON'T CARE.
"I, like you, love to point out inconsistencies."
Point out, yes. Produce, no, I try to stay away from that part.
Like I said and will continue to say, you're a phony. Own it.
Show us some of that personal responsibility.
"You routinely chide our lack of decorum in the most indecorous mischaracterizations."
What's that old saying? When in Rome... do as the Romans do.
So, when you're done taking this thread off topic (as usual), would you like to comment on the hack maddow?
Pathetic.
"You want me to comment on Rachel when the topic of the thread is about Scarborough? "
I think you prove what I say over and over again, that liberals simply do what they're told to do and say what they're told to say. Simply re-read the headlines and the topic is about Rachel Maddow's cackle that sounds like Clintons.
Perhaps this is why nothing gets accomplished in our current government, because liberals have no clue to reality. You simply give another example of that fact.
No need to throw out the homophobe card, unless that's all you have.
I didn't view that comment as the homophobe card. Rachel Maddow is open and non-apologetic about her sexual identity. I consider her to be an intelligent woman who just happens to be a lesbian.
(Not that there's anything WRONG with that, as they said on Seinfeld....)
Has Joe Scarborough ever made fun of George W. Bush's moronic laugh? John McCain's pasted-on, phony smile? Rudy Giulian's lisp? Mitt Romney's Sears catalogue, male model looks? Dick Cheney's demonic snear? Tom Delay's hair? Etc., etc....
I didn't think so...
And is he considering an independent like Joe Lieberman for his number two?
One can only dream.
SCARBOROUGH: Coming up next, John McCain's running mate. What's he looking for? And is he considering an independent like Joe Lieberman for his number two?
I'd consider taking a dump on Joe LIEberman......
You overestimate Joe Lieberman...he's damaged goods who, more and more, comes across as nutty.
And we'll all get a chance to hear the nuttier side of Joe LIEberman this week, as Superstation WGN shows reruns of ALF.....
But I guess Rachel learned her lesson from the last time Holy Joe got up and left the set because Rachel referenced the prolific exploits of gay conservatives in public restrooms.
But I guess Rachel learned her lesson from the last time Holy Joe got up and left the set because Rachel referenced the prolific exploits of gay conservatives in public restrooms.
Joe only got up because Rachel gave him an idea, and he went to the men's room to practice his "wide stance".... :-)
We just came through a long weekend. Has Columbus1492/Science 101 rejoined MMFA under a new name yet?
:-)
POW, I checked that thread out last night after it was closed for comments. Hiiii-larious!
I think Philib's teammate ( NoLeftTurns?) was the brains of the operation, as he seemed to have enough sense to cut out. Philib stuck around to turn in one of the most oblivious wingnut performances ever witnessed. I've never seen so many self-inflicted wounds. I salute those posters who actually put up with them, and offered (undeserved)rational responses. You're very patient.
I think Philib's teammate ( NoLeftTurns?) was the brains of the operation...
Sounds like a case of Dumb and Dumber. :-)
Uh-oh...it appears that Obama is acting more and more like McCain...his positions change depending on who he thinks is listening.
From Obama's website:
-- Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. --
From the LATimes:
-- And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies...my guiding approach continues to be that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable. -- Obama
Well, well...Obama has gone from an immediate 16 month withdrawal to now adding the qualifier that Iraq must be stable...Mr.Change and Hope is looking more like McCain-lite.
Don't be so quick to make book on Obama's positions...he might just pull the rug out from under you...that's one reason why Maddow was forced to cackle when trying to defend Obama...she had no defense.
Wesley,
So you are saying that if Obama learns somehting new about Iraq, he shouldn't change his plans accordingly?
You think he should stubbornly plow ahead, regardless of the facts?
That's exactly the point that mmfa has been pounding away at on McCain.
When he said he had learned his lesson on supporting comprehensive immigration reform...and according to mmfa...had flip flopped...they relentlessly attacked his change in position.
No difference...you make the call.
Wesley,
I don't care what MMFA does, I am asking you what you think.
Wesley,
I don't care what MMFA does, I am asking you what you think.
Wesley can only comment on what MMFA does, seeing as Wesley is incapable of thought.
That's exactly the point that mmfa has been pounding away at on McCain.
When he said he had learned his lesson on supporting comprehensive immigration reform...and according to mmfa...had flip flopped...they relentlessly attacked his change in position.
No difference...you make the call. - wesley / Monday July 7, 2008 5:16:06 PM EDT
Media Matters has called the media to task when they haven't noted those changes in his positions and when they've given him credit for holding a position that he no longer holds.
But you beat up that strawman argument really well! If the facts were that they were attacking his change in position, rather than attacking the media that didn't note that change in position, you'd have a point. You don't. I'm not sure why rightwingers think that they are winners when they defeat their own strawman arguments.
Here's another reason for Maddow to cackle when trying to defend Obama and the shifting sands of policy.
From Obama's website:
-- he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights --
Here's a more recent position on women's rights:
-- In an interview this week with “Relevant,” a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain “a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother.”
Obama then added: “Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.” -- AP
Pardon me while I perform a Maddow cackle! When pandering to women he's for women's rights...when pandering to a christian audience he becomes the expert on how far he is willing to support women's rights.
His thin veneer is wearing through...nothing new and exciting about Obama...just another politician...and in this case a really wet behind the ears politician.
Wesley,
I think you are stretching the meaning of what you are writing. Obama is certainly slanting his discussion towards his audience, but I don't really see a contradiction in what he is saying in either case.
On the other Hand, McCain has completely changed 180 degrees his position on these subjects. It is truly like comparing night and day.
Don't hold your breath. Wesley is incapable of defending his "arguments." That's why the only arrow in his quiver is to change the subject.
Good Catch Colonel,
That goes more to my point Wesley.
You are comparing apples to oranges, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and other such contradictory cliches!
But that, "Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case." has always been his stance.
Here's how NARAL lines up on mental distress:
-- A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy --
Try floating Obama's "no mental distress clause" for abortion past them...no chance in hell...late term or otherwise.
I can't figure out why Media Matters even posted this item. Lampooning Hillary's strange laugh is certainly fair game, just as we routinely lampoon the idiot-in-chief's bizarre habits of speech -- just watch Jon Stewart every night for hilarious examples of that.
In any event, what a wonderful opportunity to say that I just absolutely love Rachel Maddow, and I think MSNBC, or some other network, ought to offer her a program of her own. Dan Abrams' "program" can certainly go to make room. Rachel is smart is a whip and so utterly uplifting in her demeanor. Most important, she asks the questions that need to be asked, which is a rare attribute at MSNBC these days.
... By the way, when exactly did MSNBC cease being a news network? Now it's just 24 hours of quarreling pundits, prison "documentaries," and pervert punking. What gives? I mean, at least make some kind of credible attempt to REPORT the news before winding up the usual gaggle of pundits to ARGUE about the news.
I can't figure out why Media Matters even posted this item.
So how is touting your ignorance the starting point for a discussion?
I can't figure out how you feed yourself without leaving fork marks in your forehead.
So, looks like we have a new Dan Abrams hater on the site. Too bad he has nothing to do with this posting by Media Matters.
Attacking someone's laugh is like attacking someone's skin color. They don't control the pitch of their laughter. It was a dig at both Hillary Clinton and Rachel Maddow by Scarborough.
Interesting.
I do think this is a sign of the decline of the conservative talkers. They have had a number of years on top using a sneer and smear technique which neutralizes the logic and reasoned arguments of their liberal targets.
The laugh Maddow and Clinton used is, as Scarborough correctly apprehends, defensive. But it is trageted exactly at this sneer and smear approach. The laugh implies you can't argue rationally with this sort of tactic. You can only laugh at its absurdity.
The subtext to this exchange is the increasing insecurity of the conservative mediacracy. Like McCain, they are starting to look like cranky old grandfathers, risible and irrelevant.
Maddow is much younger they are, much nicer to look at, smarter, more logical, and more articulate. It is pretty hard to make her look foolish. She also represents a shift in demographics and cultural attitude espoused by a new generation, one that threatens to overthrow what remains of conservative power.
Worse still, Maddow is likely to be around and lively long after they are locked up in nursing homes or under the ground.
Is it any wonder Scarborough tries to make Maddow look like a silly girl? Really, what other option does he have?