I think it is possible that arrogance and stupidity played a role. First of all, she wasn't shy about expressing disdain for voters' inability to understand her wonderfulness:
Aside from that, because she never felt a genuine emotion in her life, her facial expressions always appeared contrived and seemed to project what she seemed to think was an "I'm like you" image. The problem? She isn't. Who else goes in front of thousands of people (with the potential for millions to see it) and thinks this is a good idea:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
Or this:
Sure, everybody who has cameras on them every moment has to deal with bad pictures taken at bad moments. Anybody ever see her husband looking so much like a fraud? Just sayin'.
The really important question, of course, is "Why do so many people hate the sound of Hillary Clinton's voice?" This article in a far-left publication is notable for a couple reasons. First, if The New Republic is asking this question, it is because people hating the sound of Hillary Clinton's voice is a problem that shows up in polling. Rush Limbaugh has famously said she sounds like everyone's first ex-wife. Not having any ex-wives, I couldn't say, but I understand what he means. There is nothing wrong with her speaking voice, but her speechifying voice is awful, phony, inauthentic, irritating, forced and anything else negative you can think of.
The second reason, of course, is that the polling reflects reality. Hillary! pretty much always sounds awful, phony, inauthentic, irritating, forced and anything else negative you can think of.
Is this because Hillary! is awful, phony, inauthentic, irritating, forced and anything else negative you can think of? Of course not, says some dipshit at The New Republic. It's because you're a sexist asshole. The New Republic dipshit then finds a couple "language experts" who assure us that Hillary's! voice is just fine, but we're a bunch of sexist assholes. Alas, the dipshit at TNR provides multitudinous links that prove she is pissing up a rope. While claiming that experts and research show that Hillary! has a voice no more irritating than any other politician, to prove here point the editor/reporter at TNR offers as proof links that kinda/sorta bigtime undermine her position. Like this one.
She goes on to claim that criticisms of Hillary's! voice are like criticisms of her laugh: it isn't forced, unnatural or irritating, you're just a sexist asshole. But then she gives us links such as this, and this, and this, and this, which all prove that Hillary! has an irritating, unnatural and forced laugh that she uses to avoid answering uncomfortable questions:
So just remember: It doesn't matter that The New York Times, the Bible of liberal news reporting, thinks Hillary! sounds awful, phony, inauthentic, irritating, forced and anything else negative you can think of. Hillary! doesn't sound awful, phony, inauthentic, irritating, forced and anything else negative you can think of. You're just a sexist asshole.
