Yesterday she gave a press conference and took the press' questions-of course the only thing they care about is emails-and they wonder why the people have such a dim view of them-and I don't care what they are saying.
I argued yesterday that she did well and looked good and I don't care what the Beltway tribe is saying, I stand by that.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/hillary-clinton-just-took-some.html
Yet we read in Politico that she 'got testy' in the exchange. I didn't see it that way. I liked her performance.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-gets-testy-when-pressed-on-email-121506.html?hp=r2_4
I thought she did a good job. Look whatever she says they're going to go off the rails and make a mountain out of the molehill. I mean what they hate to have to admit is that her supporters don't care about this political hatchet job.
There's this breathless piece from unamed Clinton supporters that are really worried after her performance.
"As Hillary Clinton faces a new round of questions about her email use as secretary of state, some longtime allies are increasingly worried that she’s learned little from past scandals, and is falling back on her tendency to mount a legalistic defense that only encourages perceptions that she has something to hide."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/allies-fault-hillary-clinton-response-on-emails-121509.html#ixzz3jGNGgTUa
I argued yesterday that she did well and looked good and I don't care what the Beltway tribe is saying, I stand by that.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/hillary-clinton-just-took-some.html
Yet we read in Politico that she 'got testy' in the exchange. I didn't see it that way. I liked her performance.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-gets-testy-when-pressed-on-email-121506.html?hp=r2_4
I thought she did a good job. Look whatever she says they're going to go off the rails and make a mountain out of the molehill. I mean what they hate to have to admit is that her supporters don't care about this political hatchet job.
There's this breathless piece from unamed Clinton supporters that are really worried after her performance.
"As Hillary Clinton faces a new round of questions about her email use as secretary of state, some longtime allies are increasingly worried that she’s learned little from past scandals, and is falling back on her tendency to mount a legalistic defense that only encourages perceptions that she has something to hide."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/allies-fault-hillary-clinton-response-on-emails-121509.html#ixzz3jGNGgTUa
Right away I don't understand. Pointing out what that you didn't break the law-as both the GOP and the media at this point are little better than its oppo research team-proves you have something to hide?
If someone wrongly accuses you of breaking the law then your response will have to be 'legalistic.'
If anyone has learnt nothing it's the press who always treats these fake scandals so seriously later to realize they followed another GOP bill of goods.
"Others have expressed dismay at how testy Clinton appears when answering questions from the press with regard to her email. A news conference on Tuesday in Las Vegas grew heated as Clinton was grilled about whether or not she had tried to wipe her email server. Some were shocked that Clinton did not have a simple answer. “I don’t know, I have no idea,” she said. “Like with a cloth or something?” (On twitter, her spokesman responded immediately that Kendall had said months ago that the server was empty"
Again, I don't understand. Not everything has a simple answer. How this is news to allegedly educated memebers of the press I don't know. I thought she came across as believable here. She doesn't know how the technology of a server works. Who does exactly?
She was criticized for not taking questions of the media's favorite issue and now she does and 'Wow she's testy when Ed Henry from Fox News throws spitballs at her, she should have looked pleased fo hear his questions.'
I guess people will always disagree but I didn't see it. She didn't seem testy. She seemed in control and reasoned in her responses.
This whole Beltway media response is exactly how they acted in the 90s. Her responses are never anything but 'testy and legalistic.' I guess she's not supposed to defend herself but do everything to validate the media's obsession.
Then the media says 'Ha, this isn't going away'-and of course, it won't because they won't shut up about it.
But the media doesn't have a clue about the temperature of the electorate and they should shut up as they have no credibility. As many times as they've been wrong in following the GOP oppo research down this rabbit hole it's astonishing they've learned nothing.
Everything they have said about the Trump phenom has been wrong. And everything they are saying about emails is wrong. The donors who asked her questions yesterday didn't care about emails.
On Lawrence O'Donnell last night-and I am so sick of Lawrence's' performance during this election-he and David Corn and Larry Page all insisted that this email thing is going to be huge.
Corn explained away the lack of interest from the donors by saying 'The voters didn't care about Iran-Contra during 1988 either' which is absurd on a number of levels.
1. Iran-Contra was a very serious, intentional case of illegality on the part of the Reagan administration. To talk about emails in the same breath is a joke.
2. In any case his point is contradicted by what happened. It hardly makes his point as George Bush the father ran away to a landslide victory with 41 states and 432 electoral votes.
So how does this show that emailgate is going to hurt Hilary in the election?
The lack of logic isn't with Hillary, it's with the media flacks who should stop following GOP talking points.
P.S. Tom Brown talks about following David Romer's Feynman Integrity. For more see David Glasner:
http://uneasymoney.com/2015/08/13/romer-v-lucas/
Basically FI argues that when we have a belief we should have a kind of scenario of what we'd need to see to change our mind.
I think that works in a lot of cases but maybe not every one as Glasner says. Like there is nothing I can imagine that would make me agree with Scott Walker that if a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother we should just let her die.
Nor Michael Huckabee saying that 10 year old girl should be forced to have her rapists' baby.
As to my claim that Hillary didn't have a bad press conference-in fact she was very good-what I'd need to see is someone giving me what the right answers would have been.
I notice a lot of people are great at saying what you're doing wrong but have no answer to what you should have done then-which kind of means they don't know what they're doing either and are just kvetching.
I see the Black Lives Matter folks get offended when asked what they want Hillary to do. Again, I've said it-the activist posture of political engagement if feminine: it's like when a woman says Well if you don't know I'm certainly not going to tell you.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/an-observation-about-black-lives-matter.html
People love to nitpick but have no solutions themselves. Kind of shows maybe their criticism is pretty meaningless.
No comments:
Post a Comment