The Clinton CNN "interview"

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12139
    RobP
    Participant

    Whoever interviewed Hillary should be named pitcher at the next softball tournament in Salem as she reeled off one after another, and Hillary hit everyone out of the park.

    Only a fool couldn’t see this “interview” was 100% pre arranged and that everyone at CNN was ordered to make it look credible.

    Unbelievable.

    #12140
    edselehr
    Participant

    Well, how about we look at those questions and see Brianna Keilar was pitching:

    KEILAR: Why is it, do you think, that someone who is a self-described Democratic socialist (Sanders) is really attracting this organic interest that your campaign seems to be struggling a little bit with?
    . . .
    KEILAR: Senator Sanders has talked about how, if he’s president, he would raise taxes. In fact, he said to CNN’s Jake Tapper, he would raise them substantially higher than they are today, on big corporations, on wealthy Americans. Would you?
    . . .
    KEILAR: Are – is raising taxes on the table?
    . . .
    KEILAR: I’m wondering if you can address a vulnerability that we’ve seen you dealing with recently. We see in our recent poll that nearly six in 10 Americans say they don’t believe that you’re honest and trustworthy. Do you understand why they feel that way?
    . . .
    KEILAR: Trusting someone to fight for them and trusting someone, these are two different things. Do you see any role that you’ve had in the sentiment that we’ve seen, where people are questioning whether you’re trustworthy?
    . . .
    KEILAR: Would you vote for someone that you don’t trust?
    . . .
    KEILAR: One of the issues that has eroded some trust that we’ve seen is the issue of your email practices while you were secretary of state. I think there’s a lot of people who don’t understand what your thought process was on that. Can you tell me the story of how you decided to delete 33,000 emails and how that deletion was executed?
    . . .
    KEILAR: But you said they – that they did the same thing, that they used a personal server and – subpoena deleted emails from them?
    . . .
    KEILAR: One former state attorney general, a Democrat, told CNN that they know of no lawyer who would advise someone, a client, facing the kind of scrutiny that you’ve been facing to wipe their server. I mean, what do you say to that?
    . . .
    KEILAR: There has been a lot of controversy surrounding your family’s foundation, The Clinton Foundation, corporate and foreign donations that have gone to the foundation and the work that it does. Has it made you think, seeing this controversy, that it’s come about, has it made you think about if you are president, what will happen to The Clinton Foundation? Have you thought about perhaps shutting it down?
    . . .
    KEILAR: Let’s talk now about Republicans. There are so many of them. Right now the front-runner is Jeb Bush. Can you believe that a quarter century after your husband was elected, there could be another Bush-Clinton race?
    . . .
    KEILAR: Donald Trump is also creating quite a lot of commotion on the other side. He’s a friend of yours, has been over the years. He donated to your Senate campaign, to The Clinton Foundation. What’s your reaction to his recent comments that some Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals?
    . . .
    KEILAR: Last week an undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times killed a 32-year-old woman, Kate Steinle, in San Francisco, a sanctuary city where local law enforcement does not enforce federal immigration laws. When you last ran for president you supported sanctuary cities. In light of this terrible incident, does that change anything about your view on this?
    KEILAR: What’s changed when it comes to your approach with the media? We’ve seen now – you’re doing this interview here today. It’s been since you declared that you’ve done a national interview like this. We saw sort of a visual representation of the arm’s length with the rope incident this weekend in New Hampshire. What’s changed? Why now?
    . . .
    KEILAR: Have you given any thought to the woman who should be on the $10 bill?
    . . .
    KEILAR: $20 – do you think it should be the $20?
    . . .
    KEILAR: And finally, I know you’ve seen your new doppelganger on “Saturday Night Live,” Kate McKinnon. She plays you and she plays Justin Bieber. Who’s the better Hillary Clinton, Kate McKinnon or Amy Poehler?
    . . .
    KEILAR: Secretary Clinton, thank you so much for talking with us.

    Looks to me like Keilar started with some good questions, got a little tougher in the middle, then lightened things up with some “softballs” at the end. Looks like a standard candidate interview to me.

    Of course, Babe Ruth hit a lot of them out of the park as well. It doesn’t mean he was being thrown softballs. 🙂

    RobP, what important questions did the interviewer miss?

    #12145
    skeptical
    Participant

    RobP, what important questions did the interviewer miss?

    No doubt Benghazi (Ambassador Steven), Vince Foster, Ron Brown . . .

    #12150
    edselehr
    Participant

    Paging RobP…paging RobP.

    You started this thread (and many others), people are responding to it…

    Want to continue the conversation?

    (Troll, perhaps?)

    #12153
    Deane Johnson
    Participant

    Based on the posting I have seen over the months on this forum, I wouldn’t expect many liberals here to know what questions should be asked.

    The only thing the liberals on this forum show any aptitude for is which Republican slept with which person they shouldn’t have.

    How about asking questions regarding what role she would take if she were President in some of the current major international issues that could come around to bite us.

    The financial collapse of Greece
    The major financial crash going on in China
    Russia’s adventurism
    Iran’s refusal to give up nukes
    The ISIS problem.

    Just to name a few. I doubt she has a response for any of those.

    #12154
    edselehr
    Participant

    Thanks Deane. That is a detailed, pointed critique. Something that RobP seems incapable of doing.

    Those are all good questions that need to be asked of Clinton.

    Given the format (length, purpose) I think this was a respectable first interview. A longer format would provide more opportunity for harder-hitting questions. And of course, when the debate season starts we’ll begin to address many of these topics in more detail.

    #12155
    Deane Johnson
    Participant

    “we’ll begin to address many of these topics in more detail.”

    That would not be characteristic of this forum.

    Meantime, I think the issue of reporters being superficial it what the problem is. I don’t think the interviewers have the ability to focus on a list such as the one I posted.

    In my mind, questions on the serious issue that face this country is what all of the Presidential candidates from both parties should be pressured on. Not “what flavor ice cream does Hillary like?”

    #12156
    Vitalogy
    Participant

    When it comes to Hillary, what is there to study? It’s a known quantity. She’s by and far more prepared and able to be President than any of the other candidates from both parties combined.

    I will openly admit I’d prefer to see Bernie be President, but I’m not sure he can win a general election and I don’t want to risk having a conservative become President. The Supreme Court is at stake.

    #12161
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    That is exactly where I’m at too.

    Really, we should be asking some good questions of everybody, and that’s going to qualify Clinton quickly.

    Ask away! It’s to our benefit. No objection here.

    @Deane: I personally will offer limited commentary on foreign policy. It’s not an area I feel all that qualified to make in-depth observations about.

    Being a populist sort, I find it more worth my time to understand economics, which often includes foreign matters, and social issues.

    #12162
    duxrule
    Participant

    I’m not quite ready to hand Billary the nomination by default. I would challenge the contention that Sanders is “unelectable.” Wasn’t Obama “unelectable” in ’07? I think people are really sick and tired of the same ol’-same ol’ in DC, and Billary represents that in spades. Thankfully, we still have more than a year for this to shake out.

    #12163
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    “not sure” is looking to see what happens with Bernie.

    Right now, I’m not sure he could win. Some time passes and maybe it’s looking good.

    Because SCOTUS, Bernie needs to show he can win. Door is open for that, of course.

    #12164
    duxrule
    Participant

    Which member of the GOP KKlown Kar could beat him? They’re all damaged goods. The Republicans are faced with choosing the least distasteful candidate out of a field of dolts, blockheads, bigots and big-money buttfuckers. They’ll try to vilify Sanders with the “SOCIALIST!” screaming, but I think he could win running backwards. It seems quite clear to me that reading the typical Beltway punditry isn’t going to be a help in the ’16 election. They’re part of the entrenched machine, and they’re out of touch. I would also like to know where this nihilistic attitude that “Billary is the only one that can win” comes from.

    #12166
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    There are two kinds of Democrats.

    Third Way Democrats are aligned with big business, accept many of the market based ideas typical of supply side, but they are liberal on social issues, and they don’t mind some cost being added to ease things for the middle class.

    They are a big part of why the ACA didn’t include a public option. Conflict with big insurers.

    Most importantly, third way Dems do not recognize the idea of public investment in the way Progressives do. It’s seen as a cost that needs to be paid for, not an investment that will generate a return. This is important.

    Progressive and to a more murky degree, populist Democrats, largely reject supply side, and do recognize public investments. They are well aligned with Third Way types on social issues, and sometimes on environmental, external cost type issues. (socialize risk, privatize profit)

    Bernie will have massive populist support, as he should. The third way types may hesitate, or vote on economic fears they buy into.

    We see very little economic reporting in the US that isn’t very strongly aligned or framed by supply side ideas, and that’s a problem as many voters absolutely do not understand all of our economic options.

    This, to the frustration of Progressives everywhere.

    So, I’m reluctant about Bernie, because I do not see media coverage on economics actually breaking current tradition to actually compare and contrast what he wants to do with what the Third Way Democrats will do otherwise.

    #12167
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    And for reference, I’ve put that data here, right along with a few others of us, with ZERO comprehension.

    So how many of us who get it will actually vote this time?

    It’s gotta be enough to dilute the Third Way types, and the crazies, who will vote in fairly large numbers.

    Should we run Clinton, less of us will vote, but we will get the usual Third Way aligned vote, and that’s positioned to trump the crazies right now.

    I sincerely hope Bernie continues to build momentum. That balance could change. And I’ll do it, if he runs. I’ll potentially vote to nominate, if I see that balance running close, like it did for Obama too.

    #12168
    duxrule
    Participant

    That makes some sense. I still intend to challenge people who think that Billary is the only viable option. That’s simply not the case.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.