Hearing Hillary Harrowing

By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
June 4, 2007 - 07:27 ET

Away visiting friends the last few days, I've been using GoToMyPC.com to access the video-capture capabilities of my home desktop. While it works well [unpaid testimonial] and lets me view the video once I've moved it to an editing board, for some reason while tuning in live to a show, the screen-within-a-screen is black. Thus, in "watching" Today this morning live, I could only hear, but not see, the segment on last night's Dem debate in New Hampshire.

But the ears-only experience was actually edifying. It permitted me to focus entirely on Hillary's voice, undistracted by her image. It's no revelation to say that Clinton's tone is anything but mellifluous. And though this was not Hillary at her nails-on-chalkboard worst, even so one can imagine Americans sitting at home asking themselves "do I want to listen to this for the next four years?" The clip I've provided includes three instances of Hillary speaking seriously on various issues. What's worse in some ways, is that it is followed by two instances of Clinton laughter. There is something about her forced giggle that is every bit as grating as Hillary in hectoring mode. Judge for yourself.

View and listen here

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

.

Bottom line: Carl Bernstein, author of a recent Hillary bio, portrays Clinton as "inauthentic." Here is auditory proof thereof.

BONUS COVERAGE: Chewing over the debate with Tim Russert, Matt Lauer left little doubt he feels Hillary's obstinate refusal to acknowledge that her vote to authorize the war was a mistake is hurting her politically.

"TODAY" CO-HOST MATT LAUER: What surprises me, by the fact that Senator Clinton has still not been willing to say anything close to that it was a mistake to cast that original 2002 vote to authorize the war, she gets the subject to come up over and over again. So do you think this strategy is backfiring?

NBC WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF HOST TIM RUSSERT: She won't let go of it, Matt. She thinks that to admit a mistake would be a sign of weakness. But she's standing next to Edwards, Dodd and Biden who have all said we're sorry, so sorry [nice Brenda Lee allusion], and Obama who was against it from the very beginning. The issue continues to be raised, and haunt her candidacy in the Democratic primary, but she's thinking general election, strength against a Republican candidate on a national security issue.

Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net

—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Demoncratic unity?

June 4, 2007 - 07:59 ET by goldenthroat

This debate was nothing short of comical! Moderated by the ever pompous and arrogant Wolf Blitzkrieg - a perfect choice for a bunch of left-coast, bleeding-heart, 'do as I say, not as I do' liberals - they proved that THEY are the party that are worlds apart on issues, not the Republicans.

They have already proven they can't even get their own agenda through Congress after six months in control - and now they're trying to debate who can be president? Is it any wonder they're afraid of Fox News!

Gee, I wonder why Nancy Pelosi wasn't part of this debate - oh, yeah, I forgot - she has already appointed herself as president!

Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.

Is it possible that Hillary i

June 4, 2007 - 08:05 ET by indianaconservative

Is it possible that Hillary is setting her opponents up for a failure? She won't say that the Iraq decision was a mistake. Instead she will let them commit to the Iraq is a failure line. Then mysteriously the media will report how the Iraq situation is improving thus making her look like she was right all along. Does anyone else think that this could be a possiblity?

Oh, absolutely.

June 4, 2007 - 08:06 ET by drillanwr

Oh, absolutely.

Could that be labeled as a &q

June 4, 2007 - 08:22 ET by Gatorgrad

Could that be labeled as a "Vast left wing conspiracy"?

The most interesting thing to me is the labeling of this as Geroge Bush's war. That supports the effort to root for failure. Then it's Geroge Bush's failure. Not theirs.

The last time I check it was

June 4, 2007 - 08:29 ET by Prester John

The last time I check it was the "United States" Army, Marine Corp, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard, not "Bush's" Army, Marine Corps etc., and the Iraq War is being paid for in blood and treasure by the American people.

Hillary is a phoney, a hypocrite, and a self-serving, power hungry, narcissistic boomer whose vote for this war was nothing more than a carefully calculated political move that had nothing to do with what she thought was right, but had everything to do with her own political ambitions.

And her hair can't compare to the Breck Girl's.

A question..l

June 4, 2007 - 08:33 ET by goldenthroat

Yeah, PJ, but how do you REALLY feel about Hillary?

I try not to look at her, bei

June 4, 2007 - 08:55 ET by kathleenirish

I try not to look at her, being afraid of snakes and turning to stone and all, but has this wench had plastic surgery or something?

And, why can't I get the italics to shut off?!!!!

Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.

The next time a democrat, esp

June 4, 2007 - 08:42 ET by drillanwr

The next time a democrat, MOST especially Ted Kennedy, calls this "George Bush's War" and compares it to the Vietnam War (as a sign of total failure), I wish someone would respond, "Oh, yeah, you mean Jack Kennedy's War ..." Granted, Eisenhower stuck our toe in Vietnam, but Kennedy was responsible for the troops heading in.

Check your history

June 4, 2007 - 09:12 ET by goldenthroat

drillanwr, You need to do some research. Months before JFK was assasinated he was trying to keep us from getting further involved there - it was LBJ who reversed that policy and plunged us headlong into that conflict.

I have read a number of books from independent researchers that verify that - not that I was ever a big JFK supporter, which I wasn't - but LBJ was the one who later regretted getting us involved over there.

Speaking of fat boy Teddy, I wonder if he can still spell "Cappaquiddick"? Find the book "Senatorial Privilege" by Leo Damore. Talk about exposing this creep for what he is - Cappaquiddick was a cover-up from the get-go!

Now, back to our regularly scheduled blog...

"I wont send American boys to fight an Asian boys war."

June 4, 2007 - 09:20 ET by CT

You are correct again goldenthroat.

"I wont send American boys to fight an Asian boys war."

- LBJ, 1964 Presidential Campaign

LIES and Dammable LIES from our friends on the left!

Agree: LBJ was the one who pr

June 4, 2007 - 09:57 ET by drillanwr

Agree: LBJ was the one who propelled us headlong into a Vietnam War commitment...

But using democrat logic and reasoning, JFK opened the chute and started the troop deployments:

13 May 61 - President Kennedy orders 100 "special forces" troops to S. Vietnam

11 Dec 61 - U.S. aircraft carrier "Core" arrives in Saigon with 33 helicopters and 400 air and ground crewmen assigned to operate them for S. Vietnam

22 Dec 61 - SP4 James Davis of Livingston, Tennessee killed by Viet Cong (VC) later called by President Johnson "The first American to fall in defense of our freedom in Vietnam"

15 May 62 - President Kennedy orders an immediate build-up of US troops in Thailand to a total of 5,000 due to Communist attacks in Laos and movement toward the Thailand border

http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm

My point is the lameness of the democrats, especially T. Kennedy, in dragging out Vietnam every time they want to throw a bucketful of failure rhetoric on this President and/or the Iraq War (not to mention today's fighting troops ... and most especially the troops who were in Vietnam). As usual, they have no context or concept of the tool they are using.

As for LBJ (D), his hand in the war was soon lost down the black hole of the MSM as soon as Nixon was in office and they could heap all the perceived failure on him and a republican administration (when it was, as usual, the democrat Congress undermining the troops and victory). Say "Vietnam War" to most anybody (of the not-so-washed-masses) and they'll tell you it was Dick Nixon's War.

However, (G-d forbid) a democrat takes the White House in `08 (and the Iraq War WILL still be going on) the war will always be called "George Bush's War", no matter how long and how much a dem prez has to make hard decisions (right or wrong) ...

An oxymoron?

June 4, 2007 - 10:22 ET by goldenthroat

drillanwr,

Your point is well taken - however, do democrats have any clue as to what "logic and reasoning" really is? :-;

I think their corporate motto is "Our minds are made up - don't confuse us with the facts!"

gt,You're right ... I'm expec

June 4, 2007 - 10:25 ET by drillanwr

gt,

You're right ... I'm expecting way too much of them.

A response

June 4, 2007 - 10:27 ET by goldenthroat

LMAO!

BTW, not sure if yunz have se

June 4, 2007 - 10:35 ET by drillanwr

BTW, not sure if yunz have seen this (it's dated May 24, `07) from The New York Sun Editorial section:

Timeline of Defeat

New York Sun Editorial
May 24, 2007

http://www.nysun.com/article/55168

Worth the read.

re: JFK---

June 4, 2007 - 09:28 ET by misterbill

re: JFK---He earned his stripes as a hero and a trusted ally when he abandoned the Cuban troops on the beach at the Bay of Pigs. I am not, never was and never will be a JFK fan. (And I grew up in Boston).

I have to LMAO ... They are o

June 4, 2007 - 08:09 ET by drillanwr

I have to LMAO ... They are objecting to the hypothetical???!!! Everything the democrats have done and still do, and stand for is completely submerged in the hypothetical. All based in feelings and ignoring the facts.

Am I the only one who think

June 4, 2007 - 08:54 ET by doubledown552

Am I the only one who thinks a Dem. can lead us to a worse situation? (i.e. WW3?); None of these candidates can be good for national security. I don't think they know what National Security means.

You're not alone. John Edw

June 4, 2007 - 08:56 ET by MightyMouth

You're not alone. John Edwards has already said that the "War on Terror" is nothing more than a bumper sticker! Scary....

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Matt Lauer Tim Russert declare MSM war bias

June 4, 2007 - 08:59 ET by CT

Little Mattie Lauer and Tim 'I am the center of the universe' Russert have long since decided that anyone who doesn't know the war in Iraq is a mistake is unfit to be president. It's so automatic with them that their arrogance zings by un-noticed.

As to the Hillbat, everyone should be forced to hear her voice and laugh before they go into the voting booth.

What exactly is it that makes

June 4, 2007 - 09:25 ET by CapitalismRules

What exactly is it that makes her fit to be president? I mean even if it is nothing more than media hype, for crying out loud- she looks bad, sounds bad, has made horrendious policy decisions, has a terrible personal history and has not done one positive thing for New York. Is it really the "woman" thing? Somebody help me please, do people realize this "thing" could be the leader of the free friggin' world? Though I suppose it would not be free for long.

Blind Ambition

June 4, 2007 - 09:29 ET by CT

Good point, blind ambition I suppose. That and a derth of viable candidates from the left while our country is at war.

It's painful...

June 4, 2007 - 09:34 ET by goldenthroat

CT, you have got that one right! I would rather have a root canal than listen to that woman's screeching!

I don't excuse any of Slick Willy's adulterous behavior during his marriage but having to listen to that woman rant and rave day in and day out would drive any man nuts!

Hillary's voice

June 4, 2007 - 12:41 ET by rubylens

I totally agree about Hillary's voice! I had the Dem debate on last night but wasn't watching it. I was just half-listening while I websurfed. I was really struck by how strident and grating Hillary's voice is. And every time the entire group laughed, her laugh stuck out above all the rest--much louder and more annoying. It sounded forced and fake, too, like she's trying too hard. It's probably her real laugh, but it sounds like she doesn't do it much or something.

It's as if Hillary is striving for gravitas with a forceful voice, but it just comes across as strident and overbearing in its tone.

Mark

June 4, 2007 - 14:22 ET by balboa

So we shouldn't vote for her because of her voice? Come on, fella. I thought shallow observations like that were only for the left?

I think what he is saying i

June 4, 2007 - 14:25 ET by MightyMouth

I think what he is saying is we should not vote for her because she is "inauthentic" as revealed by her voice. Kind of like a auditory lie detector test.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

balboa...besides her voice it

June 4, 2007 - 14:47 ET by bigtimer

balboa...besides her voice it is the phony arse words that she spews while screeeching and cackling.

Try listening....

Just once.

Anybody in their right mind would not be able to stand her shrill phoniness..

I can understand that, but Ma

June 4, 2007 - 15:05 ET by balboa

I can understand that, but Mark's article is all about the pitch and tone of her voice, not about what she's saying.

Well suffice it to say that i

June 4, 2007 - 15:14 ET by CapitalismRules

Well suffice it to say that if a Conservative sounded 1/2 as bad as Hillary, they would have to hide under a very large rock to keep from getting slammed daily.

You're just being contrary bal

June 4, 2007 - 15:20 ET by RJ

bal, you're just being your usual contrary self.....either that or you didn't read all of Mark's piece. He said "bottom line" Hillary is "inauthentic"...and her voice shows it. Only her defenders can't hear that.

When you recognize her inauthenticy, then her shrill voice, her phony laughter, her attempts to pander with badly done "black" or "down-home" imitations, etc, etc, all makes her voice the equivalent of nails on a blackboard.

Listening to the Shrillster h

June 4, 2007 - 14:43 ET by bigtimer

Listening to the Shrillster herself last night was one of the hardest things I have had to do in awhile...which I posted last some feelings about it last night somewhere.

Her forced cackling is simply so nerve-wracking I do not see how anyone can live with that voice...let alone that laugh.

Her arrogance and audacity during the whole debate spells out everything this narcisstic piece of pathetic leftist work is...

Her telling Blitzer WE do not have to do this and that regarding the debate along with Obama in one instance that had to what he called divisive regarding English Language being our official language here...nevertheless, what caught me about Hillary's answer right away was her response about THE BALLOTS in her state (which she means every state) having to be rewritten and having to have translator's blah blah blah....her creation of the motor voter law was just that a creation to get more illegal aliens here in this country to vote....her putting in Doris Misner her old college buddy as head of the INS I think that is the correct acronym to get as many illegals registered to vote as possible....

she is as shallow as they come, she already being President before has created this mess President bush has been left when it comes to the terrorists and the war and she had the audacity to say she would have to clean up the eight years of the mess this President is going to be leaving.....on and on...

She fools NOBODY but those that want to be fooled.

She is without a doubt one of the biggest enemies within this country and has been since she was very young....

I detest the piece of pathetic walking talking screeching so-called woman with all my might....she is past disgusting.

I will be glad when she is history....good riddance to a pile of rubbish.

By the way...when she uttered....My Dear Husband...about threw a brick at her threw the screen...she uses that man when it is convenient....I detest Bill Clinton, but he should of had some cajones and divorced her and married the gal he was really in love with and left the rest of us alone....in the real world.

She would never be anything without using him...she has blackmailed him for years and years...and I mean blackmailed him politically.

My Dear Husband(I watched the

June 4, 2007 - 22:38 ET by dahliatravers

My Dear Husband

(I watched the debate for a while but had to turn away when they started talking about illegal immigration.)

Tell me she didn't really say that, Bigtimer. You must have mis-heard ...

Oh she did dahlia....It was a

June 4, 2007 - 22:48 ET by bigtimer

Oh she did dahlia....

It was absolutely sickening!

Let alone stupid politically IMO....

...but hey...she's the smartest woman in the world....according to the leftists press wise and elsewhere in the leftoid world.

Made me furious she did not get asked about illegal immigration directly and her contruibution to it...intentionally!

BT & D,The quote almost r

June 4, 2007 - 22:50 ET by

BT & D,

The quote almost rivals this one:

"I had to get on my knees, - - - - and pray."

Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

LOL bot.......that is bad...r

June 4, 2007 - 22:54 ET by bigtimer

LOL bot...

....that is bad...really really bad..it is so bad it is FUNNY!

ROFLMAO!

The smartest woman in the wor

June 4, 2007 - 23:03 ET by

The smartest woman in the world had no clue that Bill was fooling around. Oh yeah right!

Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

What Liberal Bias? NYT media blackout of debate

June 4, 2007 - 18:46 ET by americandude

The New York Times (NYT) buried the Democratic debate coverage to page A14
of the print version. If you look above the fold on the front page of NTY
today, there is no mention of the debate. No photo, no article, no teaser, no
nothing!!! The front page of the NYT web version has no coverage of the debate
in the top half (major stories). But they do have articles about Hillary being
ambitious and the Dem being indicted today.

The Boston Globe has a huge picture of the Dems followed by article above
the fold on front page. USA Today has a picture and teaser above the fold on front page.

Let's see how the NYT covers the Repub debate in Wed. morning's paper. I
predict their conservative bias in newsreporting will be on display and they
will be swooning about the Repubs on the front page!!!