 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 3, 2007 at 09:08:46
Can Hillary Can Her Cacophonous Cackle? by Peter Michaelson Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
Don’t laugh at them, Hillary, bite their heads off! Why didn’t you take a chomp out of Chris Wallace, as your husband did a while back? You burst out laughing when Wallace asked you, on Fox News last week, why you’re so “hyperpartisan.” Your aides said later that, coming from Fox News, his question was pretty funny and merited your laughter. Based on its ridiculous premise, however, Wallace’s question was more absurd than funny. Laughter in response to absurdity is certainly appropriate. As a professional communicator, however, your job is to put your laughter in context in situations such as this. You might have replied to him, for instance: “Your question strikes me as absurd. It is loaded and unfair. You’re trying to put me in a position of having to defend myself against a ridiculous accusation. Try to word your questions more honestly. Maybe you’d care to try again.”
You’ve been laughing a lot lately, often inappropriately. In a story on Sunday, The New York Times called it “the Clinton Cackle.”
The previous Sunday, you cackled again on another talk show, which immediately followed a giggling outburst, when Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” said, “You rolled out your new health care plan, something Republicans immediately said is going to lead to socialized medicine.” Again, there was no explanation for your reaction, which this time seemed rather bizarre.
Friends of yours say you have a great sense of humor, though they believe it is too sarcastic to share with the general public. Go ahead and share it, please! Don’t hide your true self behind a perfectly oiled political machine. We don’t want a slimy president who plays footsie with big corporate donors and unethical fundraisers.
Nor do we want a cackler for president. The right wing has no fear of cacklers. The right wing needs to be intimidated or it won’t go back in its cage. As president, Bill Clinton would have taken less right-wing flak if he’d made himself sufficiently formidable and imposing.
In exploring the reasons for your cackle in the Times story on Sunday, reporter Patrick Healy suggested that it is unleashed when you feel nitpicked by your inquisitors and then attempt to shame them by chuckling at them or their queries. He also suggested the cackle could be strategic, that the political attacks and criticism coming at you from all sides require that you find “ways to respond without appearing defensive or brittle.”
You must feel more than “nitpicked” by your inquisitors. Don’t you feel the brunt of Republican authoritarianism? Don’t you feel that America is fighting for its democratic life against a subspecies of nuclear Neanderthals? We can’t subdue them without a true leader.
You were a primary target of the GOP’s verbal brutality during your years as First Lady and as an architect in the early 1990s of a government-sponsored health care plan. Now that brutality seems more determined to destroy you and the democratic ideals you represent. If your cackle is an attempt to access inner strength—and provide some lightness of being, perhaps, with which to rise above the brutality—it won’t increase your inner power. It’s a psychological defense. It covers up some weakness in you. We don’t want a Democratic president who only plays defense. You may still in part associate right-wing assaults upon you with past failure and humiliation. If so, you need to see that clearly and work it out.
The fact that you resorted to your nervous giggles last week when Bob Schieffer raised the health-care issue makes sense in this context. Laughter is a refuge for anxiety. Emotionally, you may slip into a defensive posture more easily than you realize. Then you use derisive laughter to regain your footing. Used this way, however, the laughter is overdone and poorly timed.
Each of us has room for more inner development. All of us have a dynamic in our psyche between aggression (emotional self-criticism) and passivity (irrational self-doubt). If we ignore our inner gremlins, they’ll pop out everywhere.
We want a president capable of uttering truth and confronting folly. When you role-play with your aides in debate preparation, have them snarl right in your face as they adopt the personas of the most despicable GOP villains of all our nightmares. Seriously—don’t laugh! You would sit there observing them, mindful of your inner self while reaching inside for those words—and more of that sense of power, equanimity, integrity, and humor—that will help usher you forward successfully, whether or not you become president.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 7 comments |
|
A True Leader IS Needed
"You must feel more than "nitpicked" by your inquisitors. Don't you feel the brunt of Republican authoritarianism? Don't you feel that America is fighting for its democratic life against a subspecies of nuclear Neanderthals? We can't subdue them without a true leader." (from the article) Unfortunately, I think Hillary does feel only nitpicked because her policies are not all that far removed from those of Cheney/Bush. She voted to continue support for the Iraq war, supports AIPAC's Israel-Palestine policy and voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in support of military actions against Iran. We are being told incessantly in the MSM that Hillary, Obama and maybe Edwards are the forerunners and, further, Hillary's nomination as the Democratic candidate is assured. Many of us resent the MSM trying to get us to buy into a foregone conclusion. Al Gore may actually be the forerunner when you consider that he gets about 10 % of the votes without being given as one of the choices. Al Gore was the first political figure to oppose the Iraq war, he is also the lead champion in the fight against global warming, a passionate defender of our Constitution, and an unyielding voice against the Bush Administration's abuse of power. Given his unmatched experience and leadership on issues of moral imperative, Gore is the leader this country needs to regain our democracy, There are several Draft Gore grassroots efforts covering a number of states. Many, many people would be enthusiastic and eager to support his campaign for President of the US if given the chance. Let's make it a possibility. He is the leader we need. by Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 3, 2007 at 1:16:08 PM  (0+)
|
|
Hillary's laugh
In one of the great sidelinings of content, the media is now running collages of Hillary's laugh. Do you have any idea how destructive that is to her candidacy as well as the positions she takes on issues? And you've bought in--giving advice on how or even whether she should laugh and under which circumstances and on which venue. We are making a children's game of politics. Commentary that buys in to the opposition marginalizing Democratic candidates merely fans the flames and takes politics down yet another notch. Sorry Peter, but "Can Hillary Can Her Cacophonous Cackle?" is a useless piece in an already trivialized game. by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 3, 2007 at 1:22:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hillary's laugh
Why not have someone who laughs? We've had a smirking jackass for seven years now. Hillary is not my first choice, but to denigrate her because of a laugh is about as sexist as you can get. It is about as low as perhaps denigrating John Edwards -- my choice -- for his southern accent. Let's get down to some solid issues here. by Shirley Bianchi (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 97 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 3, 2007 at 1:31:47 PM (0+)
|
|
I agree, Jane
The whole issue of Hillary's "cackle" is nothing but sexist. Cackles are associated with witches, crones and hens - strictly females. The author's choice adjective, cacophonus, further denigrates Clinton's laugh as being harsh, unpleasant and discordant. The smirking chimp's laugh has never been referred to as a cackle, and neither have the giggles, titters and guffaws of any of the males now running for president. by Lauria Hale (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 3, 2007 at 2:11:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Hee, Hee, Hee!
I like Hillary's laugh. She uses it when she gets a retarded question or hears some rediculous statement. "This just proves that childrens and adults does laugh differently." Guarantee you that Hillary wouldn't make elementary errors in grammatics, like our, supposedly, educated president. LAUGH IT UP, HILLARY! HAVE FUN! ccharpman by Dale Hill (59 articles, 0 quicklinks, 107 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Oct 3, 2007 at 2:17:44 PM (0+)
|
|
I don't think it's the cackle that should bother people
What she is cackling at is the problem. The media hasn't picked up on that, which is why you all are given good reason to maintain that the coverage her cackle is getting is "sexist". Our "smirking chimp" President has a laugh that is as cocky and arrogant as our policies are toward the world. Are we willing to shift to a cackle that laughs off reasonable questions? That's about as rude isn't it? by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Oct 3, 2007 at 4:17:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Right-Wing
The only way to defeat the right wing is by choosing a left winger. Kucinich is the only left wing candidate running for President in the Democratic Party. All the other Democrats are right wingers except for Gravel who is a moderate. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 4, 2007 at 3:57:01 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
