So far today I've seen several replays of the comment

from Sen. Edwards towards Hillary Clinton, you know the "change" vs. "the status quo" comment that set Hillary alight?

But I have yet to see any of the so-called "news" outlets play the clip of Hillary blowing her top.

Am I just missing it between remote clicks?

for us (so they think). And they're trying to saddle us with Hils and Barrie like they have for about a year now.

seems like i saw much worse at the earlier debate... what a bunch of manufactured hooey.

I am for edwards, but this attack is silly... wishful thinking.

with a good grip on the issues. Hillary is a female so she must always appear weak-minded and meek.:eyes: I'm an Edwards supporter too.:)

Sexist crap getting flung all over the place.

NOT SHOWING HILLARY'S REPLY? ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!!!

assholes. I've seen the clip twice this morning. Once on CNN and again on one of the other networks...can't remember which one as I've been switching between CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC.

I thought the Edwards camp was mad because nothing was being shown on TV about Edwards.
There is no pleasing you.

after the debate.

I thought he looked and sounded great! I was hoping some more voters would get behind him after they heard what he stands for. :)

I do hope he wins the nomination, but it looks like the MSM is going to do their best to stop him.:(

Even the sexist and racist Repugs who are fed up would vote for Edwards, and they know it!

I worked for the Kerry Edwards campaign, and Edwards spoke in our little town. He was amazing! I liked him better than Kerry, even then. :woohoo:

:eyes: Thanks for sharing.

Can we turn the caps lock off now?

You kinda look like you're ... I don't know ... blowing your top?

"You missed it between remote clicks."

That was not an angry response! Not even passionate... just firm conviction.

is "Why are they NOT SHOWING her response to Edwards?"

If they didn't show it how would you be aware of it? :shrug:

You know the one that won't show anything..:shrug:

and if a man had made a similar response it wouldn't even be noticed. The characterization of this incident by some on this site has been sexist. One person made a crack about her throwing the White House china - WOULD ANYONE make a comment like that if Hillary was a man - NO

All that being said - if we had sexist remarks like that here at DU you can bet that a lot of fine murcans would characterize this exchange as shrill and bitchy - so if they are not playing it on the MSM it IS deliberate attempt to help her. I agree with you completely

of Hillary Clinton since I had dinner with her and Bill while in college in Arkansas.

My point here is the way the media cuts and pastes what they want us to see.

And, for the record, Hillary lost my support prior to last night's debate, fan or not. And I'm one who buys into neat shit like the first woman - or the first black - president. I am, after all, progressive.

not showing Clinton's volley?

She did not lose it - she was not yelling - she was passionate - if you were to listen to her during that clip and then listen to John Edwards passionate part about this being personal to him - they are similarly passionate.

My point is that when a woman gets passionate she is looked at as shrill, bitchy, excitable WHATEVER - I maintain that if Hillary was a man and made the exact same statement in the exact same way there would be NO ISSUE

There were comments on DU last night that this was comparable to the Dean scream and that remarks about her throwing china in the White House etc etc etc - and that most assuredly is sexist because nobody would have made remarks like that had that statement come from a man.

That being said - I do agree with you that many many many people will see this clip as an explosion, a scream and outburst - our difference is I believe if Hillary was a man people would not characterize it that way.

The media knows that many people might look at the clip negatively and if they are trying to help her they might not be playing it for that reason.

As a woman who has experienced sexism I know it when I see it - and I saw it here on DU last night concerning this clip. For the record I am not a fan of Hillary - have not been for a LONG LONG time - I don't support her candidacy - BUT as a woman I am not going to support her taking a wrap for something that did not happen.

at that point. She recovered well later. ABC showed it but I haven't seen it yet today.

If THAT is "blowing your top" then they seriously have no idea what Mrs. Clinton is capable of. -- either that or they are just idiotic enough to think any female speaking assertively is "blowing their top".

I'm sorry I opened my trap.

I gave 2 different reasons for why someone might think that was "blowing their top". One regarding sexism and one not. ----- funny how you honed right in on the one that was.

Whatever........ :)

Whatever your reason it -- you clearly have no idea what Hillary Clinton actually blowing her top would look and sound like.

Indeed.

Unless you'd rather think there's a sinister reason for it not being aired

She responded. No one has characterized it as being anything but a response.

And yes, Hillary supporters, she did seem to flip out. Let's be honest. It looked as if she lost her temper, and if a man had done the same thing (a non-annointed man, I should say), the media would be all over it.

Damn. They must be putting thorazine in the tap water where you live. ;)

Kidding...but I do disagree. It was far from a flip-out, and I say this as someone not supporting her candidacy. It's up on TPM right now, if you think a second look and re-evaluation might be merited.

Cheers.

:toast:

Watch the 4 minutes before that comment. The other candidates are very slow and measured-- indeed, Obama almost seems to be asleep. Clinton adopts the same sort of statesman-esque demeanor in her initial response as well, but drops it abruptly after Edwards' comment. On it's own, isolated, it doesn't stand out as much as it did in the context of the debate.

Couple that change in demeanor with the actual words she was saying (what kind of politician in their right mind admonishes people for having "false hope"?), and it very much seems like a flip out to me.

it wasn't much of a "top blowing".

She was miffed all night because she lost Iowa.

She kept repeating her experience thing, except in a little bit more animated way than Richardson. :boring:

?

Dean was not. They wanted to take Dean down-- they do not want to take Hillary Clinton down.

No tops got blown that I could see. She was pissed, sure, but measured and deliberate and detailed in her reply. Edwards threw a haymaker with that, and she pretty much deflected it.

I'm not a fan in general of her overall bearing and presentation as far as speech-delivery goes. Not an attack, just my personal view of how she rocks a mike or a room. I think her cadence is too tight, and she doesn't seem to have the knack for anything that approaches soaring or inspirational rhetoric.

Kerry was the same way; I spent time with him three or four different times in '04 doing interviews etc., and whenever he wasn't "on," he was a really chill guy, funny, not at all stiff or overly measured, and nothing like the goddam Easter Island statue he always turned into whenever he had to speak or be on camera. It was weird, and it hurt him more than a little in the long run.

I've never met Senator Clinton, but the people I know who have met her say the same thing; when she's not "on," she's a generally normal, smooth, funny person. Get that camera on her, or put her in front of a podium, and she does that same Easter Island robo-thing Kerry did (and still does). She's much better than Kerry, I think, but it's still there and plain as day.

Hurts her less, I think, but voters who found Kerry's cadence and android-like speech delivery to be off-putting will get a little less bugged by her similar style, but it'll be there. Not something fixable, really; Kerry's been speaking publicly since the Taft administration or something, as has Clinton. ;)

If they don't have the knack by now, it is what it is. She'll avoid being hurt by it, I think, because she is so goddam intelligent, and has an encyclopedic mind for stats and policy issues etc.

That having been said, I think she needs to get pissed more often. I thought she batted that Edwards volley down with gusto, and her reply in substance was a freakin' banana split with fudge sauce and extra sprinkles besides. Those other fellows might not want to bait that bear too often; she's not anything but a goddam thunderclap when she gets her dander up. Good stuff all around.

:toast:

:toast: It all came from the top of her head. None of it seemed rehearsed. I thought Edwards' demeanor through that was priceless too.:)

is considered 'blowing your top', then I guess people will think so. I am quite sure, however, that I would not have just sat there and allowed little word pebbles to be bounced off my forehead without response. I thought she did just fine.

She was emphatic, but in NO way did she "blow her top."

I thought she answered with conviction and was forceful, but she didn't "screech" or sputter or anything else I'd associate with "blowing her top".

I don't get it. It was a high-stakes debate, not a tea party.

Those who whine about her being criticized about HOW she said it may, in many cases, be (intentionally?) distracting folks from WHAT she said and why it's damning for her.

See http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/448

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2609770&mesg_id=2609895">in another thread combined with the fact that I have learned the answer to the point of my OP, which is that I simply missed media coverage of Hill's reply to Edwards while channel surfing, I rest my participation in this thread.

First of all, I'm no fan of HRC, but I absolutely condemn these sexist attempts to portray that debate moment as "shrill" or "blowing her top". That's just disgusting and utterly dishonest.

It's WHAT she said that matters -- what it shows about what she's really about. And what she's really about is accruing more power to herself within the current power structure. She sure as hell isn't about challenging that power structure, she wants control of more of the levers.

THAT'S why I don't want her as the Dem nominee, period.

People who are dissing her for her demeanor, or tone of voice, or whatever are just being sexist assholes.

sw

There is no question that SOME have their views corrupted by sexism, if only in the appalling habitual paradigms of gender. At the same time, her supporters will find it EASIER to dismiss her opponents as basing their viewpoints on sexism - and MISS the substantive and principled disagreement with her positions. That level of discourse is a plague ... and it's a plague I predicted many months ago.

It was CLEAR that supporters of Obama are equipped with the entitlement to attack his opponents as 'racists.'
It was CLEAR that supporters of Clinton are equipped with the entitlement to attack her opponents as 'sexists.'

It's noxiously aggravating that racism and sexism are very real pollutants ... but we MUST not let these pollutants distract us in our pursuit of principled and valid discourse - either pro or con.

I read on DU about this big deal response that was up on YouTube and watched it. I thought, "Oh, people are really impressed with her forceful reply." Went back to the thread and people were comparing to The Dean Scream. I just didn't see it.

I'm undecided because I'd be delighted with ANY of the Dems as President. And I always have an opinion. Just love them all. A delightful dilemma.