Wednesday, July 08, 2015


I still haven't watched Hillary Clinton's CNN interview, but it got awful reviews, even from some of her admirers. Poynter's Benjamin Mullin collects some review quotes:
"She may be the frontrunner in the presidential race, but Clinton still comes across as guarded, quibbling, and poker-faced under the TV lights." (The Daily Beast) | "Clinton’s first such performance, though, makes clear that there are no guarantees that such access will come with actual answers." (Slate) | "The first national interview of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign did not go well." (Politico)
She's at odds with the press, but she's trying to create the appearance of cooperation. Maybe she shouldn't bother.

Donald Trump, by contrast, is having a jolly time with the press -- he doesn't have antipathy toward the media, but he despises a lot of other people, and he's letting his rage flag fly, as in his latest TV interview, with NBC:
Donald Trump said Wednesday that he believes he will win the Latino vote....

Trump said that "there's nothing to apologize for" in relation to his controversial comments about Mexico....

"Hillary Clinton is not going to be able to create jobs, I will tell you right now," he said. "Neither is Jeb Bush going to be able to create jobs. I will create jobs and the Latinos will have jobs that they don't have right now. And I will win that vote."

... "Hillary's weak on immigration," he said. "I might be divisive on immigration, but she's weak on immigration, which is far worse."

... Trump also labeled Clinton "the worst secretary of state in the history of our nation."

... Trump dismissed the idea that his business has been hurt by companies backing away from him as a result of his controversial comments. ...

"This is too important. Yeah, I'm losing some contracts. Who cares?" he said. "They're weak and they want to be politically correct. Some of them have already apologized to me and said they made a mistake."
And the crowd (or at least his crowd) goes wild. Here's Breitbart's John Nolte:

In a much saner, more rational way, Bernie Sanders is exciting crowds by defying assumptions that he's too old, too socialist, even too Jewish to succeed in a presidential race. He's running a responsible pure-progressive presidential campaign and Trump is just acting out like a spoiled, rich eight-year-old, but they're both punching above their weight, slugging away even though the political establishment regards them with contempt.

When has Hillary Clinton seemed to be a good campaigner? Answer: In 2000, an aggressive move by Republican Senate candidate Rick Lazio in a televised debate made a lot of people root for her. In 2008, she rallied a voter base after the early Obama juggernaut pretty much mathematically eliminated her from the race for the presidential nomination -- she found her voice and just kept fighting. She needs to turn this race into a fight in which she seems like the tireless underdog. She needs a foil. Right now, that's what's working for Sanders and Trump, in different ways.

Should she fight the media? Should she hit the Republicans even harder? I don't know, but she needs to do something to give voters a rooting interest in her.


Victor said...

One of her advisors needs to tell her to have a Proctologist take the stick out of her ass!

She's so cautious! Just like she was in 2008.

She only loosened up after Obama practically had the nomination in his pocket.

In her next interview, she needs to challenge the interviewer in a shot-and-beer (Boilermaker) competition - after which she'll answer questions.
Even if she loses, she'll win over a lot of working class men and women.
She can then put the Appalachian states in her pocket/purse!

If she keeps paying defense, she'll repeat what cost her the nomination in 2008.
Bernie's no Obama, but still...

flipyrwhig said...

Hillary Clinton isn't doing anything wrong. The media sucks and the volunteer pundits of the blogosphere are starting to fall for it -- just like happened when Elizabeth Warren was running against Scott Brown. People were rending their garments in Summer 2012 when Warren/Brown was deadlocked. (Here's a snippet from Politico re: same. It begins "It turns out Massachusetts has another high-profile pol whose campaign strategy is under fire and who is being urged to focus on likability before it’s too late.") Now no one even seems to remember it. Breathe.

Redeye said...

Hillary should fight the media like man.

theHatist said...

I don't know- I think being a lying, pandering sociopath willing to sacrifice any and all principles for career advancement might be having an adverse effect on her campaign.

See, now if she was a Republican, she'd be killing it, and beat the crap of Jeb: not only does she share his entitlement and most of his policy preferences, she (unlike a Bush) is willing to do whatever it takes to get elected.

Basically, fuck her. If I wanted a President like her, I'd have voted for Dole in the 90s.

Professor Chaos said...

Hillary Clinyon has never seemed like a good candidate to me. She's not charismatic, she's not a great orator, and she tends yo say weird things like quoting half the lyrics to "Yesterday" or telling the NAACP that the Senate is run "like a plantation- and you know what I'm talking about." (Or something like that)
Sure, she was 100% right about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," but saying that phrase aloud makes you sound like a paranoid nut. And you can't get frustrated and say "what difference does it make?" no matter how absurd the questions get.
I think she's perfectly capable of blowing this lead and losing to Sanders, but assuming she wins the Dem primary, she should make mincemeat of whomever the Rs nominate.

Steve M. said...

See, I feel the exact opposite -- that she'll beat Sanders (because his support is largely limited to college-educated whites) but she'll be vulnerable in November. We can keep saying "clown car" all we want -- someone's going to emerge from that GOP scrum and be cloaked in a mantle of respectability by the MSM. And then right-wing billionaires are going to spend billions to win -- and we really shouldn't assume that they have no learning curve and haven't figured out what went wrong in 2012.

Hillary can't coast to victory based on some in-built Democratic advantage in presidential races. She has to make an effort to win. And I'm not sure she knows what's worked for her in the past.

petrilli said...

IIRC, Gore did a similar weird thing with Bush in their debate, it being the least of his fuck ups in that campaign. A cheap rookie move that most successful women learn to parry fairly early, as Hillary did to devastating effect with Lazio. With this in mind I guess that the best foil for her would have to be Christy in the general election.

Gaydurhamnc said...

"Lying, pandering, psychopath" really? I can almost feel the flecks of spittle. As for the other sexist bullshit: "she should fight like a man" and "Sure, she was 100% right about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," but saying that phrase aloud makes you sound like a paranoid nut. And you can't get frustrated and say "what difference does it make?" no matter how absurd the questions get." I expect better, especially from a liberal. Would you ever make those types of critiques of any man running? No, because when women speak up they're "paranoid" and " frustrated" Hopefully after the primaries this testosterone fueled Sanders "bro" surge won't have hobbled the only chance we have of holding the White House. Not to mention the hopes of some of us in states like NC who are counting on an enthusiastic turnout to mitigate the damage of government controlled exclusively by the right wing nut jobs and the Koch brothers. Whether Hillary can produce those coat tails is debatable. The fact that Sanders, who if by some miracle were to win, cannot is irrefutable.

Comrade Carter said...

Go Bernie Go!

The New York Crank said...

I'm assuming that Bernie will not win the nomination, but will pull Hillary 20 degrees further leftward.

I'm also not so sure that if Bernie did win, he wouldn't beat some of the crazier Republicans. He projects a kind of honest, no bushwah attitude that the undecideds might decide is refreshing.

But if I knew anything for sure, I'd be a rich man the morning after election day.

Yours crankily,
The New York Crank

Unknown said...

The interview came across as anodyne, which pretty clearly was the main goal. If there's any other impression or moment from it likely to endure, my guess is it'll be her combining tolerance with pleasantries in dismissal of the email nonsense (on which she's already legally immune and pre-cleared on, given the comprehensive findings of several - at least two too many - GOP instigated Congressional inquiries).

How many 1-to-1 sit-downs will she do between now and the DNC? I'd guess around half a dozen more or less like this one, and round 10x that involving group and talk show settings. There'll be a few she'll need to do well on, which she's certainly capable of, and more where little to nothing will turn on how she does. What will matter most is how she and Sanders interact on the Democratic primary stages (At least 2 of the other 3 will start ouy near invisible then fade further; O'Malley, tho, is good in that setting.). I don't think Sanders is any sort of conscious tool, but he really is perfect for this role: straight-talker, laser focus on policy points, social justice before everything - if she can't handle the genuinely persistent sincerity of the best spokesperson for The People's Agenda, she's wrong for the job. Indeed, if she does well at those, she really doesn't need to display greatness or its potential anywhere else, since the DNC format and the inevitable horror to come from the GOP's survivor will do the key work for her.

This isn't invevitable, but it's a lot more hers for the taking than in 2008 and she SHOULD be better at this than then.

Professor Chaos said...

I didn't say she was paranoid, I said she was 100% right. I said it sounds paranoid, and I stand by that. And how was she not frustrated by the idiotic Benghazi questions? Of course she was, anyone would be! You don't think President Obama is totally frustrated by the bullshit he gets from the a Republicans?
Any criticisms I have of Ms Clinton have nothing to do with gender.

petrilli said...

Gaydurham: What the hell is a "Sanders testosterone fueled 'bro' surge"? It sounds so silly. Like, Bernie wears backward baseball caps and is putting keggers on his itinerary now.