Sexist Attacks on Hillary's Laugh
Shakespeare: Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
A writer named Patrick Healy yesterday critized Hillary Clinton in a tabloid-type trash article in the New York Times because of her laugh which he calls a "cackle." The implication: Hillary is a witch.
The weirdest moment was with Bob Schieffer on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" when Mr. Schieffer 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 could not seem to stop giggling — "Sorry, Bob," she said — and finally unleashed the full Cackle.
As Media Matters has reported, Healy has been doing hit pieces on Democratic candidates for years while giving Rudy Giuliani a pass. More inexplicable is that Maureen Dowd, whom Atrios named Wanker of the Day yesterday, chimed in:
As Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, once told me: “She’s never going to get out of our faces. ... She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.”
That’s why Hillary is laughing a lot now, big belly laughs, in response to tough questions or comments, to soften her image as she confidently knocks her male opponents out of the way. From nag to wag.
Then there's Frank Rich who writes:
Now Mrs. Clinton is erupting in a laugh with all the spontaneity of an alarm clock buzzer.
Excuse me? How should a woman laugh? The inherent sexism in these characterizations should be obvious. And the point needs to be made that this is not really about how Hillary laughs because however she laughed, it would be criticized. If she snickered, "tee-heed", gleefully clapped her hands or raucously bellowed, all would be jumped on as inappropriate. As Ann at Feministing writes, "If they weren't using witch or schoolgirl allusions to describe the laugh, they'd no doubt be calling it "mannish."
What will happen when a sad event occurs? How is Hillary or any woman candidate expected to cry? Should she just let her eyes well up or should she gently wipe away a tear? Is she allowed to let a few stream down her cheeks? Can she make any noises? Remember Pat Schroeder? Will writers always fall for this style of commentary?
The truth is, if Hillary had only cried a little, back during The Troubles, she might not be seen as the ice queen.
It's a laugh, people. That journalists hungry for a hit piece make it into more warrants comment and criticism. I hope the New York Times dumps him. If you'd like to weigh in, you can do so by e-mailing the editorial department of the New York Times at editorial@nytimes.com.
(Jeralyn Merritt blogs daily at TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime.)
Follow Jeralyn Merritt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TalkLeft
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Ann Coulter has resurfaced on TV lately.
Has anyone noticed how her overdone polished smooth and on queue laughter became? She laughs at everything like an idiot not realizing that some issues are not laughing matters.
The boy who cried wolf too many times loses credibility. Coulter who laughs too many times also loses credibility.
Staged or not, natural or not, in the moment... effectively emasculating.
If you want to see things in terms of gender stereotypes.
Let's not forget how utterly staged and affected the friggin QUESTIONS were.
Fercrissakes.
Sorry, the cackle is fair game as she is using it as a campaign strategy when asked a question she either doesn't want to answer or treats as stupid.
I wonder if it's going to backfire on her. I can see the GOP ads now: "Does Hillary Clinton care about what you think?" (cue cackle)
I've been saying for some time that Hillary's laugh seems forced, and that her media handlers seem to have advised her to loosen up in front of the cameras. What's sexist about that? The same kind of criticism was aimed at Al Gore in the '04 elections.
If you look hard enough, you can find sexism in a bowl of fruit. (Ooops...w
http://www
How should a woman holding a lofty, powerful office act? The same way any dignified man or woman would act, regardless of whether or not they hold a powerful position. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind. I would say "cackling" should be avoided if at all possible.
Sorry, but Hillary Clinton is not every woman. You're thinking of Whitney Houston.
Making fun of her laugh is not sexist, and to say it is, is to say that only women cackle, which is, in fact, sexist.
This is an excercise in stupidity! Why are we wasting time debating Hillary's perceived flaws? Who among us is perfecrt? If all of the anti-Hillary people and the punditry cant come up with something more substantive than that it means that they are scared to death of her and are grasping at anything they think can damage her. How wrong they are.
She's smarter, tougher, and much more self-assured than any (and all) of her detractors. To me that's a good thing. I'm not committed to voting for her in the primary yet because there are several other Democrats running who have great validity. I will not, however, engage in name calling or baseless accusations against any Democratic candidate. That's counterproductive and says more about the weakness and flaws of the accuser than the candidate.
Why does everyone seem to care enough about Clinton's laugh to fill up, by my current count, four pages worth of comments, when what should really be important is what the candidate is saying? I understand that a lot of people already care a lot about such things, and maybe all of this is just a way for everyone to unwind and humanize the candidate, but why whole paragraphs on it?
The point is, rather than answering questions and explaining her positions, she responds with an in appropriate cackle. What if Bush did that? Wouldn't he rightfully be criticized?
A debate about how someone laughs? Are you people for real? And how in the hell do you know if her goddamn laugh is phony or not? What are you physic? Fact is that no matter what this woman does the Hillary Haters, left and right, will attack. I support John Edwards but if he doesn't get the nomination, and I fear he will not, then I will vote for Hillary or Obama without too much angst. My primary concern is the Supreme Court and I am sure that ANY Democrat will select better Justices than John Roberts or Sam Alito. There are differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and don't let Nader convince you otherwise again.
Have you noticed that attacks on the Clintons from the media and Republicans are always non issue focused. They always attack personal traits. The media has never liked the Clinton's because they do not cater to these spoiled self important scribes.
At the same time they give Bush a pass regardless of his political activities.
Of course an examination of the issues assumes a knowledge of those issues. Why try to understand health care or the environment when you can easily write about personal traits and appeal to the most ignorant of your readers.
She went on 5 shows last week-and did this on at least 3 of them.
Not random-contrived.
I can only chime in that I don't know whether Hillary's 'laugh' is fake or real, I only know that, to me, it is the most annoying sound I can imagine out of a serious political candidate - the fact that she pauses, whatever the question put to her, then breaks into this cacophanous, often inappropriate, seconds-long dissonant sound, really drives me crazy hearing it. I assumed she was doing this to buy time to think about her answer - it never occurred to me that as Frank Rich suggests: it is to soften her image. I can't imagine that anyone would think it's softening her image as it seems so bizarre and newly created.
I am adding this comment not as a Hillary critic - just as a person who finds her 'laugh' to be a total liability which certainly does nothing positive for her image. It was simply a miscalculation, I would imagine, on her part and she really needs to dump it - NOW.
I am a life long Progressive like my parents before me...philo
Call it what you will it seems disturbingly random and inexplicable. Too weird. " What is so funny?" "Why are you laughing?" "Is that for real?" Self Sabotage?"
I have been torn between Obama and Ms. Clinton. That display of weirdness pushed my decision to Mr. Obama.
I only cringe at the thought of independant voters watching this. Cackle, giggle or belly laugh it was a terrible miscalculation that could cause everyday voters to take pause.
Ms. Merritt --
I think YOUR sexism is showing.
I didn't see the criticism of HC's laugh as being sexist. On the contrary, I thought it was objective and warranted.
Why shouldn't Hillary be subjected to the same scrutiny as Howard Dean & his infamous yell? That wasn't deemed as sexist. What's different about this episode of campaign fuck-ups?
If HC's chuckle is being psychoanalyzed, so be it. If she can't handle the flack, then she's no better than Mr. Thin-Skin Bush. And if it (the cackle, or whatever it's called) was forced and phoney, that's a pretty telling character flaw that voters need to know about.
The nomination isn't DUE her. She has to earn it like everyone else.
Why Hillary shouldn't be subjected to the same scrutiny as the Howard Dean yell:
1. Because this type of scrutiny was trivial and stupid then and it is trivial and stupid now.
2. It serves to distract from more substantive discussion of serious matters.
3. Most importantly, because the media does not do the same thing to Republicans - check out the fawning coverage of the unbelievably flawed Bush in 2000.
Until we stand up and demand more serious, fair coverage of candidates, we will continue to lose to disasters like Bush/Cheney.
That's the point BernieO-Hil won't commit to answering questions or telling her viewpoints on the war-on her Kyl-L vote, on her nuke cluste bomb vote, on her lobbyist donors...t
Hillary's practiced belly-laugh is not a cackle. Calling it a cackle and invoking images of wicked-witch stepmothers is sexist. It is just another example of how the mainstream media always gets it wrong, deliberately. It looks, but it does not see or want to see. Maybe the first couple of times Hillary laughed, it was genuine and appropriate. Immediately after, however, it became shtick. Now it is tiresome, and she does it awkwardly, as well as inappropriately whenever asked a really tough question (as in the last Democratic debate). It is already annoying to the public, who justly mock her for it. It is also insulting to sincere questioners. She just doesn't do her belly-laugh well at all. But a witch's cackle it ain't.
It is not sexist to point out a phony laugh/cackle. A person laughs when somehting funny is said. Clinton cackles laughs to fend of tough and/or uncomfortable questions.
It just shows what a calculating phony person she is and we do not need that type of person leading our country. We have gone through seven years of hell, lets move forward by electing someone who makes decisions based on what is politically best for them.
Calling it a cackle or giggle is sexist.
I bet you dont' believe women are as capabel of leading the country as are men.
mike
I just don't believe this particular woman is. Her record speaks for itself.
What are her accomplishments: Voted for Iraq War. Failed to obtain Universal Health Care in the 90's, just voted to declare military of a foreign gov't as a Terrorist Group, giving Bush the power to go to war again (guess she does not learn from her mistakes). Takes money from Lobbyists,but says it would not influence her votes,.
Again What are her accomplishments. Being First Lady does not qualify you to be President and her Senate record is a flop when you consider her most important vote she got wrong!!!!
The definition of cackle is to laugh in a shrill manner. If you don't think that word fits Hillary's laugh, your nuts. And will someone please explain how this is sexist? How is it different than all the talk about Bush's idiotic grin?
i found hilary's laugh more offensive than the characterization it received. most were dead on: it was phony, calculated and an evasion of tough questions. it was the political equivalent of the head toss and hair flick - maybe she'll bat her eyes a bit and wink next time? maybe hike up her skirt and show a bit of leg? i find that kind of shallow, vapid gesture to be more offensive than any 'cackle' remarks.
she's running for the highest office on the land at perhaps the most serious crisis point in our history, and all she can come up with for a response to an earnest and pressing question is a contrived and disdainful laugh? just because we advocate women's rights, let's not reflexively defend her just because she's a woman. she is often indefensible.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
