yeah, I think the line between doing it deliberately in order to win people over and doing it unconsciously because you're trying to relate to them is a thin one...

Is it a "right-wing talking point" to make the argument that she's been pro-war and pro-unitary executive, has legitimized right-wing slime like Rick Santorum with her "sober, serious" take on video game violence, undid a welfare reform reauthorization a few years back that would have been far better than the draconian and incomprehensible policy passed in 2006, has raised more K Street money than any other candidate, and generally has long seemed more interested in currying favor with the nuts on the right who hate her than progressives on the left?

I do think she's repulsive on style grounds, but my problem is entirely with her substance. As Matt Yglesias (I think) put it recently, she's the worst of all worlds: a moderate who's perceived as a liberal.

No more corporate politicians, and no more Bushes or Clintons. Let some other family screw things up and pander.

Everybody adjusts speech patterns depending on who's listening. It's a reflex that is only partially conscious or even controllable. We hear other speakers and soak up what's appropriate. Apparently the NYT folks keep the stick up their asses whether they're with their mothers or their bosses or their hos. Maybe that's why nobody likes them.

I'm far from being a Hillary fanboy, but petty crap like this gets really irritating. The Times needs to bring back more "society" columns to give these fatuous gossips something to do more attuned to their skill level.

And kudos to Sharpton for a fair and pointed response.

 Edwards votes one way, then apologizes for a primary (when it's obvious that doing so would be good politically) and he's a paragon of integrity?

Edwards admitted it was a mistake. Clinton has not.

Big difference.

I've said this before, but her stubbornness on this issue reminds me of another stubborn certain President we know...

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

," but I am one of those who unconsiously slips into the cadence and accent of the local language patterns where I am visiting--sometimes even in a prepared speech I'm giving"

I have noted that I engage in auditory mimeing speech feedback, as well. However, this reflexive character trait is not limited to crowds and my speaking to an audience. I will engage in miming that mirrors those in my presence individually.

The thing about Hillary is that she does not engage in this miming or mirroring of auditory sounds when she engages 'ethnic individuals' one on one. How is she capable of filtering that reflexive 'natural flow' then?

Similiarly, why has this 'cadence speech' appeared precipitously with her being a Presidential candidate. Hillary did not have this miming of ethnic cadence the entire time she was First Lady in the WH or in Arkansas.
Let's be real. What we are talking about is a southern drawl, which she did not acquire for 12 years as a First Lady.

Additionally, why does she NOT have the New Yorker accent like Schumer/ Guilianin?of extending vowels when speaking to New York audiences. What happens to the 'reflex' auditory miming then? Curious selective miming, hmmm.

She has been married to Bill for over 25 years yet she did not acquire his southern cadence while she was immersed in the life and culture of Arkansas.

Nahhhhh, these obvious inconsistencies suggest that she is NOT doing this reflexively nor subconcious lapsing into the speech pattern (going with the flow) of her audience . She is sincere not sincere, and indeed Pandering.

I would be the first to overlook this, had it been noted at any time previously with other audiences or her tenure as First Lady. She does not sound like that when she speaks to Oprah, Marion Wright Edelman or Maya Angelou nor Rev. Eddie Long.

That's jsut not the case. No matter what Al says.

Poor Hill, both Edwards and Obama have a natural cadence and she doesn't. She just had to show that she could play the 'cadence card' didn't she? She really thinks that makes her more competitve and actually it makes her inauthentic.The worse thing is that all those black folks have noticed her affecting their speech pattern as well and it WILL be interpreted as condescending familiarity.

And as everyone knows, familiarity breeds contempt.

Hillary is NO Bill Clinton. His charm and charisma is effortless and comes across as genuine Hillary however panders, just like she drones on when she speaks. Affecting Bill's cadence will not endear Hill to black folks Hill. You are not him, it ain't just how he says it, it is what he says as well. He's a Baptist his comes from the spirit. Yours is forced and Methodist.

Typically you tell someone to just be themselves and play to their strengths. Unfortunately, no one can discern what her political strengths are. She lacks great oratory skills, she is not charming, her substantive issues are boring and she has not distinguished herself with any legislation nor as a principled politician. Hillary is intelligence, but intelligence does not sell. Hillary is analytical but that is off-putting. Hillary is mentally astute but not emotionally inspiring. She is a political bore.

And her audience knows it, independent of her cadence. The worse thing about her cadence is that it is off beat, poor timing...like a jazz piece being played 1/16th of a note off beat.

Frankly, I'm not sure which is more offensive--if either is. I kinda think they're both just, y'know, human. We all try to relate to people, both consciously and un-. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm no Clinton supporter.

"This is a behavior we sometimes use to build rapport.
2) An intentional attempt to build rapport is unethical."

Building rapport is about espousing like values and ideas, enjoying the same things...you know wine, women and song...humor. A speech pattern is not that. An intentional attempt to affect another's speech pattern is insincere not unethical.

When a person tries 'too hard; it comes across as fake sincerity. It makes a person question and wonder what the individuals' true beliefs and principles are. Do they only say what they think you want to hear but not mean a word of it?
If they are willing to affect a speech pattern in their presence, does that mean they engage in acting like the negative stereotypes when not in their presence?

It makes you question their sincerity. It forces you to listen for consistency rather than the sound of their words to discern truth from artifice.

Folks do assimilate and acculturate (sp?) over time and so we would have expected to see this cadence or southern drawl from Hill looooong ago in Arkansas and in the WH, not in 2007 and only in front of black audiences.

Similiarly, why has this 'cadence speech' appeared precipitously with her being a Presidential candidate. Hillary did not have this miming of ethnic cadence the entire time she was First Lady in the WH or in Arkansas.

What the hell are you yamming about! Good Gravy! What a waste of letters and white space.

Not only did Hillary's "’cadence speech’” not "appear precipitously with her being a Presidential candidate" it did not appear at all. Good Gravy!

Who'da thunk it. The reporter the ntys has covering Hillary is a congenital liar. But you don’t really care. As long as it’s a Hillary lie it tastes sweet to you. People like you put bush in the white house. Twice.

The last time the rubes said Hillary’s ’cadence speech’ appeared:
Yet Another Wingnut Sliming Of Hillary Proven To Be Bogus
Rather, it turns out that Hillary was actually quoting the hymn lyrics of someone else -- while clearly and very openly imitating (not very well, it turns out) the cadences she thought the lyrics would traditionally have been delivered in. There was nothing phony about it at all. Watch for yourself:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/03/yet_another_win.php

Your hatred is not gonna help get a dem elected. It help put another repub in the white house.

As ususal you cut through the BS and got to the point. I have been hard on Clinton for many things, but this is petty.

I do think HRC has a bit of "panderitis," meaning a tendency to tell people what she thinks they want to hear rather than what she actually thinks. This is a problem, her accent not so much.