My Snap Reactions To NBC Candidate Forum
Tonight we saw the NBC pre-debate. The non-debate debate. Officially a "candidate forum," both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump appeared on the same stage -- but not at the same time. The stage was an impressive one, or at least the exterior shots were, since it was held on an aircraft carrier in New York City. This was to highlight the subject of the event: foreign policy and the military.
For some unfathomable reason, Matt Lauer moderated the event. Lauer is not exactly the first person on the NBC bench I would pick to host the kickoff political event of the campaign season's homestretch, to put it mildly. There are plenty of others with much wider and deeper experience, on both the military and on politics in general. I wasn't expecting much from Lauer, but in the end he did a better job than other moderators I've seen this election cycle, so perhaps I'm being too unfair to him. He was competent, if not exactly noteworthy.
Lauer was constrained by the condensed nature of the event. He only had a single hour to work with (with a commercial break halfway through), so he compensated by trying to rush things along -- too much, at times. Lauer's one of those guys who sometimes confuse "appearing to be a tough journalist" with "just rudely interrupting a candidate's answer," to put this another way.
Lauer also didn't exactly wow me with his chosen followups, although a few of them were well-delivered. But even his "I'm going to talk over your answer" followups usually sounded pre-scripted, like he was going to interrupt no matter what answer he got, whether his followup was actually relevant or not.
I will give NBC kudos for the audience questions, however. There were a lot of them -- much more than at a normal debate, even. And they seemed well-balanced: both candidates got questions from supporters, non-supporters, and people who genuinely hadn't made up their minds. It was a good mix, overall, and most of these questions were a lot better than anything Lauer asked. So the producers who screened and scheduled the audience questions deserve a pat on the back, at the very least. One other technical point -- likely because the audience was mostly (if not all) ex-military, they followed instructions and did not applause at all while the candidates were on stage (except at the very end). This gave it a much different feel than some of the debates, which now sound more like pep rallies than actual debates.
Matt Lauer started off each candidate's segment by attempting to lay down a rule of "don't beat up your opponent-- we're here tonight to hear what you would do." He made the point more forcefully to Clinton, whereas it came across as a mere suggestion to Trump. Perhaps because of this, Clinton (by my count) took the opportunity to bash Trump four times during her half-hour, while Trump hit Hillary seven times (which is not even counting the times he hit Obama, but not Hillary).
Both candidates, though, really were chomping at the bit to engage in an actual debate with each other. The first Clinton/Trump debate will doubtlessly draw the biggest television audience in all of American political history, because it may be akin to two armor-clad medieval knights hacking away at each other with broadswords. You could tell that if Lauer hadn't made the suggestion, both Clinton and Trump would have spent even more time going after each other than they did tonight.
Hillary Clinton
But that's nothing but speculation about future events. Tonight, Hillary Clinton apparently lost the coin toss, and Donald Trump chose to go last, so Clinton started the evening out. She worked the Bin Laden raid decision into her very first answer (no real surprise there), and responded that the most important word to describe the qualities a Commander-in-Chief needs is "steadiness."
Lauer pivoted right away to the emails, and Clinton took another crack at apologizing for it. She started with: "It was a mistake," then moved on to: "It was something that should not have been done," both of which are about as passive as possible. This is a common failing among politicians, even though a simple "I made a mistake" would have been a lot more powerful. Then again, at least Clinton has the ability to admit error -- something so far entirely lacking in Trump.
Matt Lauer was pretty annoying during the early parts of Clinton's time, jumping all over her answers and not giving her time to get even a short answer out. He was much less antsy with Trump, although he did occasionally cut Trump off as well.
The first question from the crowd was also about emails, and Clinton did a pretty good job of explaining how truly classified documents sent electronically are normally on a completely different system and are clearly marked in their headers "classified" or "secret" -- which her emails weren't.
Clinton then got an Iraq War vote question, which she has had more time (and appears to be more comfortable) apologizing for. This time it was: "My vote was my mistake" -- not passive at all, taking responsibility much more actively. She made a strong case that people should judge her on the totality of her record, and not just that one vote. This is where she got her first dig in at Trump, pointing out he was actually for the war before, during, and after it began (this is both historical fact and also something that Trump refuses to admit, so it's a good avenue of attack for her).
Clinton really hit her stride about five or ten minutes in, and did an excellent job of "looking and sounding presidential." If she's this good at answering tough questions, perhaps she shouldn't be so scared of holding press conferences? Just a thought. She also eventually got tired of Matt Lauer stomping all over her answers and cut him off with: "Let me finish, because this is important." Lauer noticeably calmed down after she did so, which I (for one) was thankful for.
On the Iran agreement, Clinton got off her best line of the night, paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, with: "Distrust, but verify." On the subject of reforming the V.A., Clinton tried an attack line on Trump that fell kind of flat, charging that he wanted to "privatize the system." Trump later pushed back on this, during his segment (I should mention that my wife thought that -- to be fair -- Trump should have had to sit in a soundproof booth while Clinton was speaking, but then she's a big Hillary supporter).
Clinton was hit from her left on how hawkish she was (and is), which was kind of surprising from such a military crowd. When asked whether (essentially) she could promise that there would be no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during her term, she wisely didn't try to overpromise and instead hit the point of not letting people on the terrorist watch list have access to guns.
Donald Trump
Trump was prompted by Matt Lauer at the start to just "keep to a minimum" attacks on Clinton, which was a lot softer than the rule Lauer tried to lay down for Clinton. When asked what in his life had possibly prepared him to be Commander-in-Chief, Trump answered with his stock lines about how he was a successful businessman, which apparently prepares you to do anything. He touted his "great judgment" and insisted that he was "totally against the war in Iraq," although the article he himself cited to prove this was "from 2004" -- years after the war actually began. If he tries this in a debate, I would expect Clinton to point out this fact, and point out what he was actually saying when the war began.
Lauer pressed Trump hard on his temperament problems, and noted that while Trump had issued a very weak blanket statement about "having regrets" about some of his statements during the primary season, America may not be comfortable with the consequences of such rash statements coming from our president. Trump didn't really have a good answer for that, other than: "I beat 16 people in the Republican primaries," and: "I behaved myself in Mexico!"
The biggest headline-generating thing Trump said tonight was probably his insistence that he still does "know more about ISIS than the generals." Once again, Trump is absolutely incapable of ever admitting error in any way, shape, or form -- and he wasn't going to start now. He seemed unclear on the concept of how the military works in relation to the civil government of the United States, almost threatening to cashier all the generals in the Pentagon his first day in office ("We're going to have other generals"), which must have been at least somewhat alarming to the audience he was speaking to. Generals aren't like political appointees (such as cabinet members) -- new presidents don't get to clean house over at the Pentagon in the same fashion, but Trump obviously doesn't seem to understand this.
Trump was asked by a member of the audience about his "secret plan" to defeat ISIS, and he absolutely flailed around trying to come up with an answer, especially when Lauer pointed out he had said just yesterday that his secret plan is to ask the generals to come up with their own plan within 30 days of his taking office. He bizarrely doubled down on his idea that America should have just "taken the sections of Iraq with the oil" or, more simply, "take the oil -- to the victor belong the spoils." This shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of the international rules of modern warfare that, again, it must have worried at least a few of the military professionals in the audience.
Trump's best moment of the night came in response to a question about undocumented young people who wanted to serve in the U.S. military. Trump said it was a "special circumstance" and backed off his insistence that all undocumented people will have to be deported. This will be news, because it is the first time Trump has clearly stated that at least one group of undocumented immigrants might be allowed to stay in America.
Trump then returned to floundering around in his answers, on his relationship with Vladimir Putin and what he'd do on the subject of vets' suicide and the V.A. problems ("I love vets -- look at my polls!"). This is where he pushed back on Clinton's assertion that he was going to privatize the V.A., swearing he'd never do that.
Trump's worst moment was being confronted by an old tweet that seemed to suggest he was against men and women serving together in the military. Lauer really didn't do a good job of nailing Trump down on the subject, which was kind of a shame because the initial question was so pointed.
Conclusion
Neither Clinton nor Trump lost control at any point during the night, or uttered some gaffe that's going to haunt them for the rest of the campaign season. By that standard, both emerged relatively unscathed.
Clinton is getting a lot better (probably all that debate prep) at sounding a lot less "lawyerly" in her answers, although at times she did resort to very carefully chosen language to explain things in her past. Trump is getting a lot better at sound less like your drunken uncle at Thanksgiving, although at times he did double down on some fairly strange statements he's made in the past.
Clinton still has problems with charismatic appeal, although the chosen subject matter didn't really lend itself to warm-and-fuzzy reactions, to be fair. Trump still has problems when pressed on actual details to back up his outrageous claims, but he did sound a lot calmer and less belligerent, even when defending such claims. Maybe his debate prep is also helping him out in this regard. Or perhaps it was again the chosen subject matter, the chosen format (no applause at all), and the chosen audience which helped Trump stay more focused and serious-sounding.
I regularly shy away from proclaiming who "won" and "lost" debates, and since this wasn't even a true debate, it's easy to dodge such a subjective read on the evening. I think Clinton supporters will leave thinking she did very well, and Trump supporters will leave with much the same impression of their candidate. As for undecided voters, I have no idea what impressions they'll take from tonight.
My biggest impression is that conventional wisdom was the big winner tonight -- the idea that "the real campaign starts after Labor Day" was certainly proven to be true tonight. Both candidates obviously know they're in a tough race, and both looked like they seriously want to win in November. Both were cautious about what they said, and much less belligerent than we'll see in the first real debate. That's my snap judgment at the moment, and as soon as I post this, I will be interested to see what everyone else in the punditocracy had to say about tonight.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris,
Why do you think Hillary is so reticent about holding press conferences?
I mean, I watched her entire 11 hour marathon of testimony before the congressional committee looking into her actions Re. Benghazi and thought she handled that extremely well.
Handling the press - and schooling them - would be a walk in the park by comparison, I should think ...
I didn't watch this non-debate debate and have just seen the odd clip or two.
But, wouldn't you agree that Hillary needs to make a bold adjustment to her campaign strategy if she wants to win this thing, let alone win it big?
The way I see it she is being far too cautious and really needs a bold new approach considering her opponent, the signs of the times and her own flawed candidacy.
Matt Lauer: Seeing as I only know him from Will Ferrel's hilariously stupid "Land of The Lost" remake, I was amazed to find out that he actually seems to be some sort of Tee-Vee News Journalist person and not a total buffoon. Exceeded my very low bar!
Apropos of nothing: Why am I now regularly seeing Hillary Clinton ad spots in Oakland, California on FX, AMC, and the Comedy Network? Is this some sort of A/B testing strategy?
Apropos of nothing: Why am I now regularly seeing Hillary Clinton ad spots in Oakland, California on FX, AMC, and the Comedy Network? Is this some sort of A/B testing strategy?
With the LA poll, Hillary is worried about California...
Michale
CW,
Excellent commentary...
That's what I like about you. More often than not, no one can guess your a bleeding heart liberal.. :D
Mostly..... :D
"Mostly they come out at night... Mostly.."
-Newt. ALIENS
Michale
The way I see it she is being far too cautious and really needs a bold new approach considering her opponent, the signs of the times and her own flawed candidacy.
Exactly!!!
Trump is no longer the shot-from-the-hip, shoot first, shoot-again-shoot-some-more-and-then-forget-the-question candidate he once was...
Ya'all are on record as stating that (I am paraphrasing) the biggest fear is that Trump actually settles down and becomes presidential..
Well, welcome to the Left's biggest fear....
Trump IS settling down..
And the poll numbers prove it..
And the Left Wingery is in a panic..
http://www.thewrap.com/hollywood-democrats-nervous-as-clinton-trump-polls-tighten-im-freaked-out/
This race has always been Clinton's to lose...
And she is doing a bang-up job of doing just that...
Michale
CW,
I didn't watch the non-debate debate... It was past my bedtime..
Did Hillary cough up a lung?? :D
Michale
The word for today is "Competence". As in: knowing how to do the job with which you are tasked.
Matt Lauer did a fine job of convincing us all that he doesn't have either the chops or the expertise to be interviewing potential Commanders in Chief.
Hillary did a fine job fielding a half dozen questions about a made-up scandal for which she has already been vindicated by every investigation that has looked into it.
Trump did a fine job of letting us know that he has no idea of how the government, the law, the military promotion system, international law, or even videotape works. His assertions that Putin is a 'strong leader', that American Generals are 'rubble', that he could fire said Generals on his whim and replace them, that we could have 'taken' Iraq's oil for ourselves, and that he was against the war in Iraq after he was against it are all such easily disproved assertions that we ought to collectively charge Trump for the time we unnecessarily have to take to look up all of the cites.
One interesting moment, though, when Lauer used the word 'unpredictable' in relationship to Trump's foreign policy, Trump repeated the word 'unpredictable' and said "yes, yes we have to be".
Where I came from, the phrase was "if you can't beat 'em with brains, baffle 'em with bullshit"
He's playing Fizzbin with us.
That is, he was against the war after he was for it, and also before he was for it, and while he was for it.
And his plan for defeating Isis is: 1) make a plan.
The big news on the news wire this morning is the CNN poll...
Trump tops Clinton 45% to 43% in the new survey, with Libertarian Gary Johnson standing at 7% among likely voters in this poll and the Green Party's Jill Stein at just 2%.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_politics-zone-injection/trump-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/
Hillary is down by 2 points...
Cue claims that this is not a valid poll.. :D
Michale
The word for today is "Competence". As in: knowing how to do the job with which you are tasked.
And yet you still support Hillary who ADMITTED she was ignorant of State Dept procedures..
You still support Hillary who turned Libya into a hell hole..
You STILL support Hillary who has totally frak'ed up Syria and handed The Crimea to Putin...
Compare that to Trump who has been a HIGHLY successful business man and who is trusted hands down over Hillary on the economy...
So, yes.. Competence is the word of the day..
And Hillary has proven time and time again that her and Competence have never met..
Michale
He's playing Fizzbin with us.
And yet, polls show he is AHEAD of Hillary..
Can you explain that??
Michale
His assertions that Putin is a 'strong leader'
Fact...
that American Generals are 'rubble'
Fact...
that he could fire said Generals on his whim and replace them
{{cough}} {{cough}} General McChrystal {cough}
that we could have 'taken' Iraq's oil for ourselves,
Not ALL of it..
all such easily disproved assertions
By all means.. Do so... :D
that we ought to collectively charge Trump for the time we unnecessarily have to take to look up all of the cites.
Or you can just concede that what Trump said was dead on balls accurate... :D
Michale
And his plan for defeating Isis is: 1) make a plan.
Which is an INFINITELY better plan than Hussein Odumbo's plan and Crooked Hillary's plan of not even HAVING a plan...
Which is why Trump is winning and Crooked Hillary is losing. :D
Michale
The word for today is "Competence". As in: knowing how to do the job with which you are tasked.
When asked about the (C) notations on documents, Clinton said that perhaps they had something to do about alphabetical order, even though there there were no (A)s, (B)s or (D)s.
She doesn't know dick about the classification process, even though it is her JOB to know...
And the fact that Clinton used not one email device, as she claimed in March 2015, but at least 13, and that at least eight were lost and two smashed with a hammer.
She lost *EIGHT* cell phones containing classified material...
Competence??? Knowing how to do the job with which you are tasked??
Apparently, Hillary fails in BOTH those areas...
Michale
No wonder Hillary did so well yesterday in the Forum..
NYPD sources confirm Clinton was wearing an ?inductive earpiece,? the same technology employed by almost all lead Broadway actors to receive forgotten lines and stealth off’stage cues from directors. The flesh’colored earbud is easily concealed. There are no wires running directly
truepundit.com/nypd-hillary-clinton-was-wearing-invisible-earpiece-to-receive-stealth-coaching-during-live-nbc-tv-town-hall/
Further, it looks like Camp Hillary is really REALLY worried about the facts of Hillary's health issues.. :D
Clinton campaign warns media to tread carefully
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is working the refs hard when it comes to reports about her health.
While Clinton responded to a fit of coughing this week with humor, saying she was “allergic” to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, her aides and surrogates played the role of bad cop.
Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill took to task an NBC reporter who wrote about the coughing spell, posting on Twitter that the writer should “get a life.”
thehill.com/homenews/campaign/294910-clinton-campaign-warns-media-to-tread-carefully
For Crooked Hillary, the hits just keep on comin'!! :D
Michale
No wonder Hillary did so well yesterday in the Forum..
NYPD sources confirm Clinton was wearing an ?inductive earpiece,? the same technology employed by almost all lead Broadway actors to receive forgotten lines and stealth off’stage cues from directors. The flesh’colored earbud is easily concealed. There are no wires running directly
tinyurl.com/hamkw9t
Further, it looks like Camp Hillary is really REALLY worried about the facts of Hillary's health issues.. :D
Clinton campaign warns media to tread carefully
Hillary Clinton’s campaign is working the refs hard when it comes to reports about her health.
While Clinton responded to a fit of coughing this week with humor, saying she was “allergic” to GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, her aides and surrogates played the role of bad cop.
Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill took to task an NBC reporter who wrote about the coughing spell, posting on Twitter that the writer should “get a life.”
tinyurl.com/z7jq45s
For Crooked Hillary, the hits just keep on comin'!! :D
Michale
Wooops.. Sorry about that.. :^/
Thought the NNL filters had kicked in..
My bust... :D
Michale
Patience is a virtue.
Patience is a virtue.
"Patience is not one of my virtues... Actually, I don't have any virtues, but if I did, I am certain that patience would not be one of them."
-Crowley, SUPERNATURAL
:D
In 6 weeks all this will be over...
Or, it will just be the beginning... :D
Michale
I can't wait!
:D
Michale
[9] Balthasar: Yep!
Lauer is getting hammered today by a lot of people but, in a way, I think he's somewhat irrelevant. In another way, he pretty much confirmed what many feel -- that the media goes easier on Trump; that they treat female candidates differently (with less respect), and that they insist on rehashing stupid things (emails). Having said all that, I think he actually was a bit tougher on Trump than he's getting credit for. But the real outcome of it all was that Trump ended up looking like an idiot, a blustering dunderhead. And he looked terrible even given the relative softness with which he was treated.
Hillary, meanwhile, looked like what she is: really smart, really knowledgable, really tough. I'll be looking for articles about what the audience members thought…
This morning HRC had her second press-conference and she got off a couple of snappy answers. I liked this:
Q: Could you react to the RNC saying you were too serious last night, and do you think there is a double standard?
A: You can ponder that one. I don’t take advice from the RNC. We were talking about serious issues last night. I know the difference between talking about ISIS and the VA and political happy talk. Donald Trump chose to talk about his deep admiration and support for Vladimir Putin. Maybe he did it with a smile and I guess the RNC would have liked that.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/8/1567899/-Hillary-Clinton-holds-press-conference
This morning HRC had her second press-conference and she got off a couple of snappy answers. I liked this:
Hillary did NOT have a "press conference".. She took a couple questions in the back of her plane and left when the questions got too tough...
Michale
Lauer is getting hammered today by a lot of people but, in a way, I think he's somewhat irrelevant. In another way, he pretty much confirmed what many feel -- that the media goes easier on Trump;
Except that Trump got twice as many questions as Hillary...
But the real outcome of it all was that Trump ended up looking like an idiot, a blustering dunderhead.
In YOUR opinion... The reality is far FAR different..
Which simply illustrates my point..
For Hillary sycophants, it's *ALL* about ideology...
Trump supporters aren't driven by slavery to Party dogma...
As your's truly and ya'all's statements attest to... :D
Michale
An open-air plane, eh Michale? Heh.
[24] Paula: point - Clinton.
Priebus reminds me of the character that Oliver Platt has played a couple of times - the careerist who suddenly finds himself buying into a set of increasingly amoral positions, each more perilous both to himself and to his future prospects.
If you follow that character arc, eventually he says to someone who's caught him in some blatant act, "What can they do to me.. make me head of the RNC?"
Elizabeth: Trump could have a convertible plane too, but it would muss his hair. He'd end up looking like a troll baby.
An open-air plane, eh Michale? Heh.
If Hillary had her way.. :D
Nope.. Hillary's "press conference" consisted of her walking back to the back of the plane, the "peon" section.......
"Hay!!!! Don't you 'peon' me!!!"
Capt Jerk, 1976 Middletown High School South Talent Show
:D
.... of the plane and allowing the press to ask a couple questions.
Of course, Hillary had to cut short the "press conference" because she was again, coughing up a lung...
Michale
all such easily disproved assertions
By all means.. Do so... :D
Apparently NOT so easily disproved, eh Balthy?? :D
Michale
"Clinton’s email exchange with former Secretary of State Colin Powell helps her, because she indeed has said, I consulted with Powell. He gave me this advice. It doesn’t make the use of a private server in her basement defensible. It’s indefensible. It endangered national security. They’re apples and oranges to some extent. And at the same time, it shows that Powell looked for a run around of bureaucracy, but that’s different than Hillary Clinton trying to avoid accountability under the Freedom of Information Act, to Congress, etc., by setting up an inaccessible server in her basement.”
That said, she has to break this cycle about the server, about her truthfulness, and I would suggest that she open up, that she starts holding press conferences, release her medical records, and spend an hour with the press talking about her health, that she also release those texts of the speeches before Goldman Sachs, say, as she did about foreign policy, and her vote on the war, I’ve learned from my mistakes, the American people want me to be more open. Here it is, and I’m starting right now in this campaign. I think there would be a tremendous turnaround in terms of how she is perceived, particularly she wants to make an issue of the taxes of Donald Trump, let her release her speeches.”
- CNN Political Commentator Carl Bernstein
And THAT is a Hillary SUPPORTER.... :D
Michale
Apparently NOT so easily disproved, eh Balthy?
Balthy? As I type, EJ Dionne is discussing all of the evidence that Trump actually did support the war.
So he was for it before he was against it. Then he was for it, then he was against it. Sounds familiar.
Fizzbin.
As far as knowing more about defeating Isis than the Generals, I'll believe that when I see his post-graduate degrees in National Security Management (some people don't know that military officers are required attend professional colleges in order to advance in rank).
As for McCrystal, he tendered his resignation, rather than face disciplinary action that would have resulted in his loss of command anyway. Loose lips sink ships.
Of course, Trump's assertion that we might have taken even SOME of Iraq's oil not only flies in the face of international law, but lends false credibility to the terrorists' assertions that America is only interested in the Middle East to the extent that we can plunder their resources and corrupt their governments.
As for Trump's defense of Putin - this is simply bizarre. Putin is a two-bit dictator who has undermined his country's young democracy, jailed his detractors, suppressed the press and bullied that country's neighbors. Great guy. What's scary is that much of Trump's foreign policy staff are also either blind to Putin's menace, or (like Manafort) flat-out doing business with him.
Michale,
It appears you missed out on Hillary's latest presser, not in any part of the plane ...
It appears you missed out on Hillary's latest presser, not in any part of the plane ...
Apparently, I did.. Would you mind linking it?? :D
Michale
So he was for it before he was against it. Then he was for it, then he was against it. Sounds familiar.
Yea.. John Kerry, 2004... :D
Michale
Balthy? As I type, EJ Dionne is discussing all of the evidence that Trump actually did support the war.
Which didn't amount to a hill o' beans in the larger scheme of things.
Hillary and the Demcorats supported **AND** voted for war...
Their votes helped make the war a reality...
This is fact that no amount of spin can change...
Michale
As for McCrystal, he tendered his resignation, rather than face disciplinary action that would have resulted in his loss of command anyway. Loose lips sink ships.
Yea.. Obama said "resign or be fired"... Same thing..
Obama did the exact same thing that you slam Trump for..
There's a word for that..
It's called 'hypocrisy'...
But it proves once again that the **ONLY** thing relevant to ya'all is the almighty '-X' after a person's name...
In yer eyes, a person with a '-D' after their name can do no wrong.. A person with a '-R' after their name can do no right...
A person with a '-D' after their name DOES do something wrong {cough} {cough} WEINER {cough} and it's a one-off.. Isolated case..
A person with a '-R' after their name does something wrong {cough} {cough} Aiken {cough} and it's indicated of the entire Party...
"These are the facts of the case.. And they are {indisputable}"
Michale
'Read the reports': Hillary Clinton refuses to explain what she told the FBI about how a concussion impaired her memory
DailyMail.com asked Hillary Clinton on Thursday if she could clarify what she told the FBI about a concussion that hampered her memory
'Read the reports' was all she would say as she walked away from her podium on an airplane after a short press briefing
FBI report released Friday says Clinton told them that she 'could not recall every briefing she received' following her concussion
Clinton has been silent on the subject and would not discuss it on Thursday
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3779981/Read-reports-Hillary-Clinton-refuses-explain-told-FBI-concussion.html#ixzz4JhOUkbQc
That the presser yer referring to???
Michale
Here you go, Michale,
https://www.c-span.org/video/?414976-1/hillary-clinton-holds-news-conference
You know, C-Span is a pretty good site to bookmark for these sorts of things ...
Liz,
What do you think of Carl Bernstein's suggestion for Hillary...
If she were to do that, she would likely destroy Trump's chances of winning...
But she won't do it...
Because if she actually came clean and told the truth about everything, she would destroy HER chances of winning even more...
Reminds me of that old MISSION IMPOSSIBLE episode where the IMF team had to trick a political candidate into coming clean about ALL of his nefarious dealings...
It was a pretty awesome episode.. :D
Michale
Hehehehehehe Under the MOST APPROPRIATE heading..
NEWLY DISCOVERED FLATWORM IS NAMED AFTER OBAMA
INTRODUCING BARACKTREMA OBAMAI
http://www.popsci.com/newly-discovered-blood-fluke-is-named-after-obama
A wormy spineless parasite is named after our President...
Kinda apropos, don'tcha think?? :D
Michale
michale,
I saw that interview with Bernstein and thought it sounded a lot like my advice, though mine went much further, of course. :)
I agree that Hillary is in danger of losing this thing if she doesn't start taking that kind of advice very, very seriously. I do see some signs that she might make such a change in strategy but she's running out of time ...
Well, ya'all CLAIM to adhere to "science", right???
Hillary's Health Concerns Serious, Say Most Doctors Polled by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
TUCSON, Ariz., Sept. 8, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Concerns about Hillary Clinton's health are "serious—could be disqualifying for the position of President of the U.S.," say nearly 71% of 250 physicians responding to an informal internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). About 20% said concerns were "likely overblown, but should be addressed as by full release of medical records." Only 2.7% responded that they were "just a political attack; I have confidence in the letter from her physician and see no cause for concern."
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillarys-health-concerns-serious-say-most-doctors-polled-by-the-association-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons-aaps-300325065.html
There's your science, people...
71% of Doctors say that Hillary's Health issues are serious and could be dis-qualifying for the presidency..
How do ya'all like your "science" now, eh?? :D hehehehehehehehehehehehehe
Like I said.. The Left Wingery is ONLY about the "science" that supports the ideological agenda...
Michale
I love his suggestions in this article re: fact-checking: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/08/it-s-time-for-the-media-to-step-up-and-call-out-donald-trump-s-many-lies.html
Something all legitimate media needs to begin doing. They have to quit with this bullshit false equivalency, we report/you decide crap. I love his suggestions re: the debates and print media -- good read.
Because if she actually came clean and told the truth about everything, she would destroy HER chances of winning even more...
I think you are wrong about that. Instead, if she did make those changes to the way she is campaigning then she will do herself a big favour and dramatically improve her chances for success - in the presidential election and beyond.
And, totally apropos of absolutely nothing...
http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article8795281.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/OCT-07-Bath_Stealth_Destroyer_MERB101.jpg
Meet the USS Zumwalt, a new class of US Destroyer..
Called the Starship Enterprise of the seas, it is captained by none other than Captain James Kirk... :D
Pretty bad-ass looking ship.. :D
Michale
I think you are wrong about that. Instead, if she did make those changes to the way she is campaigning then she will do herself a big favour and dramatically improve her chances for success - in the presidential election and beyond.
It would depend on what she had to confess, no?? :D
Something all legitimate media needs to begin doing. They have to quit with this bullshit false equivalency, we report/you decide crap. I love his suggestions re: the debates and print media -- good read.
Yes, but ONLY fact-check Donald Trump...
Hillary gets a pass, right?? :D
Michale
I agree that Hillary is in danger of losing this thing if she doesn't start taking that kind of advice very, very seriously. I do see some signs that she might make such a change in strategy but she's running out of time
I completely agree...
The problem is that Hillary has been this way for over a quarter of a century..
The idea that she can change in a week???
I think that's a bridge too far....
And if she can't change.... Trump will be POTUS..
Michale
I agree that Hillary is in danger of losing this thing if she doesn't start taking that kind of advice very, very seriously.
Careful, Liz... You remember what happened to the LAST someone who said I had a good point.. :D
Poor Don..... :(
Michale
Michale,
I saw that interview with Bernstein and thought it sounded a lot like my advice, though mine went much further, of course. :)
Aren't you going to ask me what my advice to Hillary is with respect to a new bold approach to her campaign strategy? Aren't you!?
"We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again and we are not putting ground troops into Syria.”
-Hillary Clinton
Uh... Hillary???
There are almost 5000 ground troops already in the TOP....
So, your claim is complete and utter BS...
Paula, would you like to fact-check Hillary?? :D
Michale
Michale,
I believe she knows there are troops on the ground already and meant that there won't be another round of combat troops in Iraq or Syria or anywhere else in the region of the kind seen in March 2003.
Another missed opportunity (and a simple gaffe), though, for her to correct herself and set the record straight.
I believe she knows there are troops on the ground already and meant that there won't be another round of combat troops in Iraq or Syria or anywhere else in the region of the kind seen in March 2003.
It makes her look incompetent and ignorant..
But you are correct, in the larger scheme of things, it was a simple gaffe...
Much like MANY of Trumps "apocalyptic" comments...
:D That was my only point in bringing it up..
The different standards..
Michale
Aren't you going to ask me what my advice to Hillary is with respect to a new bold approach to her campaign strategy? Aren't you!?
Elizabeth,
I would love to know what your advice is to Hillary for her campaign.. :D
Michale
Well, Michale ... I'm so glad you asked!
Here are a few thoughts about how I think Hillary can move her campaign upwards and onwards. It could be too late for such a bold move. But, I don't think so, given the reality of the situation she faces and given that I believe she is absolutely capable of making such a move successfully.
Now, this advice applies specifically to the "cozy relationship" between her state department and the Clinton Foundation but I would also offer up some advice for a similarly bold approach with respect to her private email server situation. In fact, she could combine engagement on these two issues, as well as others, in one event like the one I outline as follows:
Organize a day-long event at the Clinton Foundation that will:
(1)comprehensively discuss the good works the foundation is engaged in, first and foremost, with deliberate emphasis ... not a focus on Hillary but just the work that is being done all over the world and within the US ... rather this part of the day should be facilitated by the people at the foundation actually doing the work;
(2)highlight how the State Department works with organizations like the Clinton Foundation and how a resource-deprived state department is assisted in its diplomatic efforts around the world through work with such organizations; emphasize the disparity between the resources devoted to the DOD and State and explain how many of the challenges in the world are better solved through diplomacy than by military action and the state department needs to be better funded in order to fulfil its rightful role in the formation and execution of US foreign policy;
(3)allow Secretary Clinton to give an overview, in as much detail as possible, of every single meeting she had with the Clinton Foundation donors in question; she should also give a brief general accounting of all the meetings she had as secretary, demonstrating the scope of her responsibilities as secretary of state and, presumably, showing that meetings with foundation donors accounted for a relatively small percentage;
(4)for a couple or three hours at the end of the day (okay, it will be a long day but I believe well worth the effort - maybe a two day event?), Secretary Clinton to meet with the international and domestic press, print and broadcast; invite all of the major outlets and their senior correspondents will be first with questions for the secretary; use a lottery or whatever for the rest of the journalists; perhaps even have a social media connection to this press availability and certainly live stream the entire event wherever it can be live streamed;
Preferably, there will be no mention of her major opponent during the course of the event; the comparison between the two should be readily apparent.
Additionally, I especially liked Bernstein's advice about releasing the transcripts that exist of her speeches to the Wall Street crowd, regardless of whether her opponent acts similarly to release his tax returns. In so doing, she could highlight her support for reigning in the excesses of Wall Street and for the critically important Dodd-Frank set of reforms.
Perhaps she could even enlist the assistance of Secretary Geithner and together they can explain why the Republican approach to tax and fiscal policy is not consistent with economic growth.
In a nutshell, she needs to meet her vulnerabilities head on, with extreme transparency; she also needs to head off the dangerous national and international dynamics that a certain political analyst has warned about in the expectation that more bad things will happen; in so doing, she highlights her superior leadership abilities and vision for an America, stronger together!
Okay, Chris ... just posted a very long response to Michale that I don't want to have to re-type ... so, you know what you need to do!
hehehehe...
I'll catch it in the morning, Liz..
Just finishing up Season 4 of GRIMM with the lovely wife and then hitting the sack...
Michale
G'nite
LizM [1] -
I've thought the same thing, and also that pressers would sharpen her up for debate season. She may be coming around -- she's been talking to the press on her plane, and gave a full-fledged press conference this morning.
chaszzzbrown [2] -
See the column I just posted today, "Lauering The Bar."
:-)
As for Clinton cable spots, I too find it's always a shock to see an actual presidential TV ad, living in California! Of course, people in battleground states have a different experience (to put it mildly).
Michale [5] -
Snerk snerk. Hillary may be worried about a lot of things, but winning CA ain't one of them. Those 55 EV are in the bag for her.
[8] -
No coughing. So I believe you owe the kitty 1000 Quatloos, right? Heh. Oh, and did you catch Newt Gingrich coughing while complaining about Hillary coughing? Priceless.
Balthasar [9] -
Matt Lauer did a fine job of convincing us all that he doesn't have either the chops or the expertise to be interviewing potential Commanders in Chief.
Excellent. Nice Fizzbin reference, too. Everybody enjoying the 50th anniversary of Star Trek?
:-)
Michale [13] -
Ah, c'mon... no kudos for the Fizzbin reference? From YOU?
Paula [24] -
See my column today on Lauer... and thanks for the link!
Balthasar [28] -
What can they do to me.. make me head of the RNC?
OK, now that was funny!
:-)
Michale [30] -
You're a day behind on the news. She answered questions on the plane for two days running, then had a presser on the tarmac in front of the plane this morning.
Michale [37] -
It's not spin -- it's Trump lying. There's a big difference. Your accepting his lie as fact is the spin, in fact.
Paula [45] -
Thanks for that link, too!
:-)
LizM [56] -
Sorry, the delay in posting this comment was due to the autofilter... mea culpa...
Interesting advice. I've been pondering whether to write a column of advice for Clinton myself. I can sum it up in one sentence: "Hillary should pledge never to use email again for any official business, period." That would go a long way towards putting the whole thing behind her, I think.
Anyway, I made it to the end... woo hoo! Everybody checck out my Lauering The Bar column for my response to the Lauer dogpile this morning...
-CW
[4] chaszzzbrown,
Apropos of nothing: Why am I now regularly seeing Hillary Clinton ad spots in Oakland, California on FX, AMC, and the Comedy Network? Is this some sort of A/B testing strategy?
California? What the...?
There's a goldmine of college educated viewers in that area. If you're interested in stats, there are 23 zones in that market, including Oakland:
https://www.comcastspotlight.com/markets/san-francisco
Sounds like they're not taking anything for granted. Interesting!
[5] Michale,
With the LA poll, Hillary is worried about California...
So using your logic here, if HRC falls behind in the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, she'll simply start running ads in New York City! LOL :)
That "LA poll" you like to cherry-pick is a weird national poll because it questions the same 3000 people over and over. You didn't post it today so HRC must be ahead now. [checks poll]
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Yep, she's ahead... Must be those adverts chaszzzbrown is seeing in Oakland! LOL :)
In a nutshell, she needs to meet her vulnerabilities head on, with extreme transparency; she also needs to head off the dangerous national and international dynamics that a certain political analyst has warned about in the expectation that more bad things will happen; in so doing, she highlights her superior leadership abilities and vision for an America, stronger together!
That is all very good advice...
But it has one flaw as it pertains to Hillary Clinton..
You advocate openness, transparency and honesty..
Qualities that are very VERY alien to Hillary..
Your advice would, if followed, win the election for Clinton..
The fact that she WON'T follow that advice is what is going to doom her campaign...
Michale
That "LA poll" you like to cherry-pick is a weird national poll because it questions the same 3000 people over and over. You didn't post it today so HRC must be ahead now. [checks poll]
Nope.. The only reason I post that poll is to show you people how you ONLY pick the polls that say what you want to say and ignore the polls that say what you DON'T want to hear..
Your response is a perfect example..
You only mention the poll when Hillary is ahead...
And so what that the poll queries the same group of people every time.
To me, that indicates that the results are MORE accurate rather than less accurate.. It's a lot less random and gives the mood of the same group of people over time..
Put another way... If the poll included the entire state of California every time, then that poll would be MORE accurate rather than less accurate...
But, as I indicated, I only post single polls to show you people how politically bigoted ya'all are and how you ONLY accept polls that show what you want and ignore the polls that show what ya'all don't want...
Michale
CW,
Ah, c'mon... no kudos for the Fizzbin reference? From YOU?
That's because the reference is completely non-sequitor and not relevant to any current discussion..
Which indicates that Balthasar is completely Trek ignant.. :D
Michale
“I’ll say this for him; he’s consistent.”
J.T.K.
“I’ll say this for him; he’s consistent.”
J.T.K.
I stand corrected...... IF.... If you can cite the reference. :D NO GOOGLE... :D
Irregardless, doesn't change the fact that your Fizzbin reference was non-sequitor.. :D
Michale
Seriously, Balthasar..
“I’ll say this for him; he’s consistent.”
J.T.K.
That was well played... :D
"You wouldn't hit a guy with glasses, would you... {WHAM} You hit a guy WITH glasses.. Thats.. Thats... heh Well played.. "
King Candy, WRECK IT RALPH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_PwqVIYBIU
:D
Michale
the kickoff political event of the campaign season's homestretch
Do the horses wear helmets, or only the jockeys?
[64] Michale,
Nope.. The only reason I post that poll is to show you people how you ONLY pick the polls that say what you want to say and ignore the polls that say what you DON'T want to hear..
Your response is a perfect example..
Oh, I see... your problem with simple facts. I quoted your comment [5] where you were the one who mentioned the "LA poll" in your response to chaszzzbrown's comment [4]. So my response to your comment quoting you is somehow "a perfect example"? LOL :)
I don't ignore polls based on outcome, BUT if I were actually forced to pick a poll to ignore, this "LA poll" would rank at the top of the list as a good choice.
You only mention the poll when Hillary is ahead...
Oh, sure... that must be it: I quoted the poll you mentioned first because I wanted to rub your nose in a 0.2% lead in a poll I criticize for its methodology. {sarcasm off}
Put another way... If the poll included the entire state of California every time, then that poll would be MORE accurate rather than less accurate...
It is a daily poll. The "entire state of California" being polled on a daily basis when the outcome is not remotely in doubt is a patently ridiculous concept. A poll such as you describe here would simply show HRC ahead by substantial double digits on a daily basis and would be quite superfluous.
My whole point in my comment regarding your response to chaszzzbrown is to point out that you seem to think the "LA poll" is a poll of California voters that caused HRC to start running ads in the Oakland market for fear of losing CA when it's a daily national poll that measures voters across the United States.
I don't ignore polls based on outcome, BUT if I were actually forced to pick a poll to ignore, this "LA poll" would rank at the top of the list as a good choice.
Which PROVES that you do ignore polls based on outcome.. :D
My whole point in my comment regarding your response to chaszzzbrown is to point out that you seem to think the "LA poll" is a poll of California voters that caused HRC to start running ads in the Oakland market for fear of losing CA when it's a daily national poll that measures voters across the United States.
Being a born and raised Californian, I can speak with some authority.
Los Angeles is pretty indicative of the diversity of California as a whole..
If Hillary is losing in LA, it's a POSSIBLE indication that she is having trouble in California..
Apparently, she agrees with me as she is running ads there....
If you have another LOGICAL or RATIONAL explanation as to why Hillary would waste money in a "sure thing" state.....
"Well, I am all ears..."
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates
Michale
[71] Michale,
Which PROVES that you do ignore polls based on outcome.. :D
What part of "I don't ignore polls based on outcome" has confused you? Paying attention to the methodology to determine which polls are likely more accurate is not indicative of ignoring a poll's outcome, merely an indication of how accurate the outcome of one poll might be versus other polls with different polling methodologies... paying more attention to polls, not less.
Being a born and raised Californian, I can speak with some authority.
Los Angeles is pretty indicative of the diversity of California as a whole..
If Hillary is losing in LA, it's a POSSIBLE indication that she is having trouble in California..
Apparently, she agrees with me as she is running ads there....
Okay, sure. Since the "LA poll" is a NATIONAL poll of voters across the country and NOT a state poll of just Californians, it really doesn't matter if you were "born and raised" there or if you come from Uranus, but we can all go with that prattling BS of yours if it makes you feel better about your home state that Hillary has "in the bag." Snerk snerk.
If you have another LOGICAL or RATIONAL explanation as to why Hillary would waste money in a "sure thing" state.....
"Well, I am all ears..."
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates
Oh, I have no doubt. LOL :) Prattling on and on about the "LA poll" being MORE accurate if it would include the "entire state of California every time" when it is a NATIONAL poll that measures the United States as a whole and includes voters across the country is a sure way to prove you are "all ears"... with absolutely nothing but emptiness in between them.
What part of "I don't ignore polls based on outcome" has confused you?
The part where everything you say is BS.. :D
Okay, sure. Since the "LA poll" is a NATIONAL poll of voters across the country and NOT a state poll of just Californians, it really doesn't matter if you were "born and raised" there or if you come from Uranus, but we can all go with that prattling BS of yours if it makes you feel better about your home state that Hillary has "in the bag." Snerk snerk.
Which doesn't explain why Hillary is running ads in California...
Oh, I have no doubt. LOL :) Prattling on and on about the "LA poll" being MORE accurate if it would include the "entire state of California every time" when it is a NATIONAL poll that measures the United States as a whole and includes voters across the country is a sure way to prove you are "all ears"... with absolutely nothing but emptiness in between them.
And once again, you ignore the issue and just go off on a tangent of a National Poll when the discussion is a California/LA poll..
Have you had one too many?? :D
Michale
Michale,
And once again, you ignore the issue and just go off on a tangent of a National Poll when the discussion is a California/LA poll..
Oh, c'mon! Seriously? You have posted the poll before:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/02/ftp406/#comment-83417
Follow the link above to your comment containing the link to the poll, and please visit the website and learn that it is a national poll and not a California state poll.
Have you had one too many?? :D
I have had "one too many" discussions about that national "LA poll" with the weird methodology. :)
Oh, c'mon! Seriously? You have posted the poll before:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/09/02/ftp406/#comment-83417
DOH... My mistake.. I thought it was an LA area poll.. I was wrong..
Take THAT, Listen... :D
OK, NOW your comments make more sense..
I have had "one too many" discussions about that national "LA poll" with the weird methodology. :)
The methodology is not all that weird... I can see the value in charting a person's "journey" from Hillary supporter to Trump voter... :D
Michale