Oh, and my comment wasn't directed at you, Greg--it was directed to the geniuses who thought that the laugh was "back" and worth a story.

Of course they did.... and note how none of the reports actually cites the exact question she asked which was a ridiculous, convuluted kind of "gotcha" question that deserved to be laughed off.

I'd prefer they talk about how she had no answer for the clear conflict of interest vis-a-vis Columbia - posed by the reporter. She doesn't know how to respond to the question and so she tried to laugh it off. Though the laugh, and the media's reporting of it, is superfluous, she actually benefits from the media's fixation with it rather than them noting her inability to answer the question.

It's not the laugh that's the problem--it's the blatant conflict of interest between her husband and her own position.

It's not the laugh that's the problem--it's the blatant conflict of interest between her husband and her own position.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winnah ladies and gents!

Anyone have video of this laugh?

So Greg did Bill's Columbia payola wind up as a loan to the Restoration 2008?

How about the obscene amount of retirement benes. Bill is pulling down from his stint as Clinton the First?

Hill-arious
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4046775866170006029&q=hillary+laugh&total=672&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

Remember these poor media folks are stuck in Pittsburgh; they have to do something to amuse themselves.

It is amazing how this woman can laugh off the slime oozing out of Obama's and the right wings pores as they call her a F*cking Wh*re and cheer.

You really can't find a better woman, she is above all the slimy little toads attacking her.

And this should worry anyone, regardless of who they support.

It worries plenty of people and plenty of people have been on top of that for years, for all the good it does. Actually it does do some good because that's how the Religious Right and the conservative movement did it - they bitched endlessly about the "liberal bias" in the news and so what we get now instead of truth, which has a liberal bias, is nonsense.

Here is the video of Senator Clinton laughing off the fact that her Husband, Bill Clinton, has been paid huge sums to push the Colombia Trade Deal.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#video/politics/2008/04/11/sot.clinton.laughs.off.pool

The question was about the $800,000 Bill Clinton earned in 2005 giving speeches for the Bogota-based group that supports the Colombia free trade agreement.

Sounds valid to me.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#video/politics/2008/04/11/sot.clinton.laughs.off.poo

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (CNN) – Hillary Clinton used her trademark laugh Thursday to deflect a question about the $800,000 her husband earned in 2005 giving speeches for a Bogota-based group that supports the Colombia free trade agreement — the same trade deal she currently opposes.

Asked by CNN if those earnings represented a conflict of interest given that she has dipped into her family's pocketbook to pay campaign bills, Clinton threw up her hands and laughed loudly for several seconds.

"How many angels dance on the head of the pin?," she responded, continuing to giggle. "I have really, uh, nothing to … I mean, how do you answer that?"

The New York senator explained there are different sides to the argument over trade, and re-emphasized her own opposition to the trade deal, assailing the Colombian government's "outrageous" record of "targeting labor leaders."

"I am against the Colombia free trade deal," she said. "It doesn't matter who talks to me. It doesn't matter any circumstances. I have been against it. I am against it. I will be against it absent the kind of changes in behavior that I have been calling for from the Colombian government."

Earlier in the press conference, describing her husband's advocacy for the trade deal, Clinton said: "Everyone is free to express their opinion

I give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on many, many topics (her stance on Iraq not being one of them).

However, I do happen to think that her laugh is sometimes fake and strategically deployed in order to deflect difficult questions that she both wants to express derision toward and to avoid giving an answer to.

I seriously doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way. I mean, she never laughed like that in public until like a week after her advisors started talking about how they were going to "humanize" her, and then she started laughing heartily all the time, then there was a mini-backlash b/c it seemed fake, and she completely stopped. If you can completely stop like that for months, it draws into question the spontaneity.

I agree that it's not that important and that the focus should be on whether Bill's close to a million bucks from Colombia are going to impact her stance on the bilateral trade agreement with Colombia once she is in office.

Not to mention that it would seem that the many unsolved murders of trade union members and supporters in Colombia would make it a country in which you wouldn't want to be involved in the anti-union movement in order to avoid any possible appearance of having blood on your hands. At least if you have any sort of pro-labor leanings or concerns about appearances.

Inasmuch as it was a question about conflict of interest, Hillary, the way to answer it was pretty clear.

Either there is one or there isn't.

Laughing at the question in an attempt to demean it ain't an answer.

Gee whiz, based on her laugh returning,I think I'll switch my vote to Hillary!

I only do that when she cries, myself.

;)

Oh for Christ's sake...

Does Obama laugh? Ever? Now that you mention it, I don't recall him laughing. I can picture Hillary having a good time. I can picture her having a fit of laughter. I can picture her angry. I can see her as a really fun person to be around. I can imagine a wide range of emotion from her. But I just picture Obama as the same all the time. Is it part of the "cool" thing? Surely there's more to him than that.

Given the seriousness of the questions, and how they directly pertain to her, there really isn't a clear line demarcating an insincere laugh from an evil laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3gQfz8GC0o

As a cheeky, 22-year-old college student who herself has a very annoying, almost wicked, high-pitched cackle, I'm tired of this meanness and silliness.

One more crack about Hillary's laugh and I throw the election to McCain.

From my persective the laugh is a surrogate for the lack of authenticity from which HRC seems suffer. The laugh is not genuine, or at least does not sound particularly so. And a fundamental lack of authenticiy is one of the issues that some folks, including me, have with her as a candidate. Her Tuzla and Macedonia and Ireland Peace Accord "stories" also sound in the lack of authenticity arena, as does her professed lifelong support for the Yankees (who really believes THAT?). So HRC's laugh is material to the extent that it may have come to be a symbol for a certain deeper, broader notion that some folks hold that HRC lacks authenticity as a candidate.

Reporter: "Senator Clinton, your husband received $800,000 in speaking in support of the trade deal - is that a conflict of interest?"

Clinton: "Hahahaha, hahaha, hahah, hahaha ... (shakes head) I mean ... how many angels dance on the head of a pin?"

Geez - reporters and their silly questions these days!

I call on Hillary Clinton to reject and denounce her hearty trademark laugh.

so obama is too black for you because he appears to be cool? uh huh! a lil bit of jealousy there otto ole boy???

__________
this article sucks b/c hillary's laugh doesn't interest me and the fact that we keep making it an issue is disgusting. there is much more juicy stuff on hrc camp to report on---lets start with colombia-gate!!!

go obama!!!

The reporter unnecessarily brought in the point about the loan of money to the campaign. It's a conflict of interest even without that.