Hillary Clinton’s Sense of Humor

Former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (AFP Photo/Andrew Burton)

I can remember the first time I heard Hillary Rodham (her name back then, in 1969, when we first met at Yale Law School) laugh.  A bunch of guys and Hillary in the law school lounge.  I forgot the joke, but all of a sudden we heard this great laugh — you only describe it by using the expression “belly laugh” — and we all started laughing harder, realizing that we were egged on by Hillary’s deep and utterly joyful laughter.

One of the most telling moments during the 2008 presidential campaign was when Hillary laughed with the same hearty laugh during one of the presidential debates, evoking my fond memories of law school days.  Yet the next day, I saw — in disbelief — nasty journalists actually calling her laugh a “cackle.” I was so angry.  It was obvious to me and probably most women that no male candidate would be said to “cackle” when he laughed.

Hillary wasn’t just funny when she laughed — she had a great sense of humor, usually based on not taking herself too seriously and sharing in the joke about herself without taking offense.

I was reminded of all this when I saw some excerpts from the ABC Diane Sawyer interview posted over the weekend, just before the first exclusive interview on ABC on Monday night, on the eve of the June 10 roll-out of the publication of her memoir, “Hard Choices.”  (I haven’t read the book yet but have read some excerpts published in the last week or so).

Ms. Sawyer asked Hillary about a comment from Republican Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who she quoted as recently stating that the Democratic “presidential ticket for 2016 is shaping up to look like a rerun of the Golden Girls.”

Some politicians would take umbrage at this cheap shot and slash back.  I was thinking she might have said, “Wait a minute, Mitch McConnell is one to talk — he’s not exactly a spring chicken!” Or that she would have reminded Ms. Sawyer that if she were elected in 2016, she will be younger than Ronald Reagan, whose two terms as president Republicans still revere.

Instead of my snarky or argumentative response, Hillary burst into a big smile and laugh and told Ms. Sawyer about the Golden Girls TV series:  “That was a very popular, long-running TV series.”  Classic.

Just as characteristic for me was her response to the comment by Karl Rove, who speculated, without any evidence and inaccurately that Hillary  may have suffered brain “damage” as a result of a concussion and blood clot at the end of 2012.

Again, if it were I, I would have described Rove’s comment as not only false, but as the worst form of political sleaze.

Instead, Hillary Clinton broke into a big smile, and said:  “I know he was called [George W.] ‘Bush’s brain’ in one of the books written about him, and I wish him well.”

“I wish him well.” (!)

Again, I thought, classic Hillary.

I only wish Ms. Sawyer had asked Hillary to comment on the remark made by Mr. Charming, Russian President Vladmir Putin, when Putin was asked about Mrs. Clinton’s comparison between his actions in Ukraine to Adolph Hitler encouraging German nationals in other sovereign nations to “invite” German annexation.

 Putin actually said (I am not making this up):  “It’s better not to argue with women.  But Mrs. Clinton has never been too graceful in her statements…When people push people push boundaries too far, it’s not because they are strong but because they are weak.  But maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman.”

I am pretty sure the response would have been a quick look of disbelief, and then, a big smile, maybe saying something gracious about Mr. Putin, and then — a rich laugh growing and emitting spreading to all watching and listening…… just like 45 years ago.

Davis served as special counsel to former President Clinton and is principal in the Washington D.C. law firm of Lanny J. Davis & Associates, and is Executive Vice President of the strategic communications firm, Levick. He is the author of a recently published book “Crisis Tales:  Five Rules for Coping with Crises in Business, Politics, and Life.”

By Lanny J. Davis on 01:15 pm Jun 11, 2014

Afghans Remain Resilient as Election Day Looms

Afghan security officials in Kabul, Afghanistan on March 25, 2014. (EPA Photo)

Earlier last month the Taliban began their annual spring offensive in the wake of Afghanistan’s first attempt at a democratic transfer of power. While the elections are a sign of progress and a confirmation that Afghans remain hopeful for their country, the Taliban reminds us that they are still a significant force in Afghanistan’s political landscape. 

On April 5, over  seven million Afghans went to the polls to vote in the first round of elections despite the Taliban’s efforts to thwart voter turnout and deter Afghans from partaking in their nascent democracy. The willingness to defy the Taliban by supporting the democratic process in Afghanistan proved itself as more than 50% of eligible voters went to the polls. However, leading up to election day, armed insurgents led a series of deadly attacks including a suicide bombing at the Afghan Interior Ministry and an attack on the Independent Election Commission (IEC) headquarters. Despite this violence, campaign rallies were still held across the country and remained relatively peaceful. 

Following the first round of elections the IEC stated that the results did not yield a clear winner, as no candidate was able to secure more than 50% of the votes. The front-running candidates, former Foreign Minister and Northern Alliance member Abdullah Abdullah, and Ashraf Ghani, former Finance Minister and World Bank economist, will face each other in a run-off date set for June 14. Both candidates have agreed to accept the outcome of the run-off and have disregarded any ideas of a coalition government. 

As violence continues to rise in Afghanistan, Abdullah and Ghani have appeared to show a willingness to work with the US on signing a security deal. This would allow for a limited number of US troops to remain in Afghanistan for training purposes and to aid in counterterrorism operations until the end of 2016, measures Karzai has chosen not to take in an attempt to distance himself from foreign powers. By ensuring a security deal with Afghanistan, the US is placing themselves in a position to wield tremendous political influence within the country and maintain a limited amount of control. 

As the withdrawal of US troops continues, and their combat mission nears an end, the Taliban have increased their terror attacks in an effort to weaken and destabilize the government. It has become apparent over the 13-year war that the Taliban cannot be militarily defeated, at least not to the point where they no longer serve as a threat to Afghanistan’s stability.

The Taliban has expressed deep resentment towards Western intervention; therefore as the withdrawal of US troops continues, there is hope that peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban might be successful.  The US and Afghanistan have recognized that the Taliban will continue to have a presence within the country regardless of who maintains control of the central government. In an effort to minimize violence, incumbent President Karzai has already initiated peace talks with the Taliban, steps both Abdullah and Ghani are also prepared to take. However, if the number of civilian casualties continues to rise out of these insurgent attacks, the more difficult it will be for the Taliban to gain any type of legitimate foothold within the country. 

With less than 30,000 US troops remaining in Afghanistan, the International Crisis Group has stated that “escalating violence and increased insurgent attacks” are to be expected. The organization also stated that while some areas have experienced more stability since the withdrawal of US troops, the Taliban is gaining more confidence in their insurgent attacks.  Afghan security forces have already taken full responsibility for the country’s defense — thus the spring offensive and potential run-off election violence could determine the readiness and effectiveness of their ability to combat the Taliban insurgency.  

While Afghanistan is seeing many “firsts” in 2014, there are obstacles that cannot be overlooked which cause serious challenges in its effort to move out of perpetual conflict. Many Afghans resolve to move forward with the elections proves that they remain hopeful, as this is the first time in decades that they have an opportunity at self-determination. With an estimate of more than 50% of eligible voters participating in the election process, 37% of voters being women, Afghans have proven their resilience through the inability to be swayed by the Taliban. Still, insecurity remains a looming problem, and as long as the Taliban persist in their pursuit of violence, Afghanistan will remain a country in transition.

By Katie Jessup on 07:01 pm Jun 10, 2014