2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary’s Worthless Interview: Why Clinton Is Determined To Not Make Any News - Salon
Hillary’s worthless interview: Why Clinton is determined to not make any newsThe Dem frontrunner sat down for a big interview with CNN, and got away with saying absolutely nothing interesting
Simon Maloy - Salon
Hillary Clinton, interviewed on CNN, July 7, 2015. (Credit: CNN)
<snip>
By my reckoning, in the roughly 20 minutes Hillary Clinton spent talking with CNN’s Brianna Keilar yesterday, she answered two questions. The interview with CNN was Hillary’s much-hyped “first national interview” since becoming a presidential candidate, and she succeeded fantastically at making precisely zero news.
The tone for the whole interview was set in the very first question. Keilar asked Clinton about the large crowds Sen. Bernie Sanders, right now her chief rival for the Democratic nomination, is drawing and how his appeal contrasts with her own. Without so much as acknowledging the substance of the question – Sanders and his supporters – Clinton answered by saying over and over that she is happy with her campaign and feels good about it.
I feel very good about where we are in Iowa. We are signing up thousands of volunteers, people committed to caucus for us. We have a committed supporter in every one of the 1,600 precincts. And one of the things that I learned last time is it’s organize, organize, organize. And you’ve got to get people committed. And then they will follow through and then you bring more people.
So I feel very good about where my campaign is. It will be three months and a few days that we’ve been at this. I think I’ve learned a lot from listening to people in Iowa. And it’s actually affected what I say and what I talk about on the campaign trail.
So I couldn’t be happier about my campaign.
Let no one doubt that Hillary Clinton is a fan of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Keilar tried to get Clinton to comment on a policy issue Sanders has raised – higher tax rates for the wealthy and corporations – and she punted, saying only that she would lay out her economic policy proposals at a later date and that she “look[s] forward to the debate about them.” She just wasn’t going to allow herself to be dragged into anything resembling a policy discussion.
Here it would have been nice had Keilar pushed ahead and tried to get Hillary to take a position on some of the other policy issues that matter to liberal voters and are actually helping to drive the Sanders surge: climate change, Social Security, trade, etc. Hillary has been out front and aggressive on certain progressive issues like immigration and marriage equality, but very cagey on other topics where her rivals are closely aligned with the party’s liberal base. Keilar could have asked her what she thinks about a payroll tax donut hole for Social Security or pressed her for a reaction to Martin O’Malley’s aggressive plan for addressing climate change. It’s unlikely that she would have answered, but it would have been instructive nonetheless to see her dance around a series of critical policy questions.
<snip>
More: http://www.salon.com/2015/07/08/hillarys_worthless_interview_why_clinton_is_determined_to_not_make_any_news/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
madokie
(51,076 posts)that the only thing Hillary wants is to be the first female President, the hell with policy. following her campaign it seems she thinks that Hillary is why Hillary lost the last time so she is hell bent on not letting that happen again. I'd really like to know what she has in mind on a lot of issues other than the couple three she'd staked her claim too. Hillary talk to us about what you have in mind on trade, on Social Security, on wars in the middle east, hell on a lot of issues like what we're going to do about our crumbling infrastructure, our unemployment problem, including all ethnic groups. Our prisons for hire system that is making a lot of criminals out of a lot of people who if they had a job they'd not have to resort to doing some of the things they do to make ends meet. Talk to us Hillary and let us know where you want to lead us. I know you can dance and dance well but thats not answering any questions I have so stop the shit and talk to us and tell us what your plans are.
for crying out loud
ETA: we get it that you want to be the first woman president but right now we have some pretty daunting issues that needs addressed. We don't have the luxury of a well running government for you to only care about being the first female president. Right now we need answers and intended policies. Either put up or get the hell out of the way
HFRN
(1,469 posts)that's really quite simple, the same thing she's always had on her mind
what to take from Peter, to give to Paul, to get what she wants
(Peter is middle or working class, Paul is quite wealthy)
George II
(67,782 posts)....day by day. What you're looking for couldn't even be covered in a two hour interview.
She HAS said "what she has in mind". This is the age of social media, it's out there!
madokie
(51,076 posts)and how she proposes to do that. A little here a little there would be fine, but something Besides Bullshit.
She has told us that she wants to pretty much keep on doing what we're doing now. things like letting the rich and connected continue to fuck us like they're doing. I'm not buying any of it and you shouldn't either.
Hillary Clinton is the last person who we here in America need as our leader, the very last person. As time goes on the more I believe that
George II
(67,782 posts)
DrDan
(20,411 posts)I am amazed daily by the bluster around here . . .
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)and he wants his logo back.
msongs
(73,751 posts)
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)The left hates the media, often says we should ignore the media... but is now demanding Hillary kowtow to the media.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)about how you will govern.
Everything has to be stage managed, every word calculated.
The whole point of giving interviews is to talk to the American people.
It would be so painful to have to listen to this stuff for four to eight years.
The only reason she stayed competitive in 2008, was because she cried in New Hampshire.
For a moment, she was her authentic self, and she won NH.
She would be so much more powerful if she spoke from the heart.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I think that is a strange and incorrect talking point used only because you and many others don't like the way Hillary is using the MSM and it's simply a repeated meme designed to bludgoen her on the latest HDS talking point.
Town hall meetings, stump speeches, electronic messaging and yes, the Debates will all impart far more information that words provided to the MSM, who will very likely cherry pick what sentences they print or air.
Interviews with most msm...and especially this particular interview was nothing more than cotton candy. A fluff piece with no meat in the questions and nothing particularynote worthy in the questions.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I understand that she get a lot of junk questions but even when she gets a real question
she brushes it off without answering.
It is a campaign philosophy that I don't like.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)I cant think of any better way to reinforce every stereotype about women being weak than our most prominent female candidate crying under pressure.
Remember, folks, there's no crying in baseball.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last night a DUer asked me why I had nothing bad to say about HRC or O'Malley (in a decision about a quote by Malcolm X :huh
... I started to reply, because HRC hasn't done/isn't doing anything for me to criticize ... what she (or her husband did) 7 1/2 - 10 years ago doesn't warrant my ire, nor does what she might do (in opposition to what she is currently saying). And, I'm just learning about O'Malley; so, any criticism I might lodge would merely be "BettyEllenistic."
So I just ignored the question and commented on the posters statement ... that I found to be the most ridiculous statement I have seen in a long time on DU.
PatrickforO
(15,424 posts)What I've always said is that I wish the mainstream media heads wouldn't be such lightweights and would ask some hard policy questions, like "what's your plan to get the increasing number of Fortune 500 companies who currently are not paying any US income tax to pay their fair share?" or "what is your plan for addressing some serious infrastructure issues?" or "what is your plan for expanding Social Security?" or "what is your plan for making postsecondary training more affordable for a wider portion of Americans and to reduce the student loan burden? and related how do you think we can get the schools who are promoting all these loans to be more accountable for actually placing their students?" or "there are still millions of Americans who do not have healthcare; do you think healthcare is a basic human right, and would you support Medicare for all Americans or at least an 'opt-in' public option?" or "What is your specific policy plan to alleviate global warming and decrease carbon emissions?"
These are the kinds of questions that candidates SHOULD be asked but instead we get the horserace questions - 'gosh, how do you feel about the rise of Bernie in the polls?' and the questions designed to generate faux controversy, like 'what if Iran drops a nuke in Israel.'
I mean, we have to face it - the mainstream media is corporate owned, but we cannot afford to ignore them because that is what most low information voters listen to.
As to asking Hillary to 'kowtow' to the media, I don't see how her failure to address a specific policy question is 'kowtowing.'
See, my biggest fear with Hillary is that she seems to me to be pretty poll-driven, maybe excessively adverse to any risk until she sees which way the wind is blowing. I mean, a classic example is the TPP - she was instrumental in its development, at least according to her own speech given to the New York Economic Club in October 2014, yet now she won't take a position on it because most of the Democratic base is against it. Now, that might be good POLITICS, but it is crappy POLICY. That's why I like Bernie so much because he doesn't do that. All the guy has to do is open his mouth and you know exactly where he stands. Do you know how refreshing that is???
The other fear I have with Clinton is that even though increasing numbers of thought leaders are calling our current neoliberal capitalist system unsustainable, she by her past actions is an exemplar for this system. Sure, it's great to support gay marriage, because that doesn't affect her funding base at all. These other things? Yes, they do. You start taking the positions that the American people really want, and more importantly NEED, and all of a sudden Wall Street funding dries up. What this tells me is that she is too beholden to these corporate groups.
You know, I know you do, that we have some really serious problems and the windows on being able to address them with any hope of success are closing fast. This is why I cannot support the 'safe' candidate who I know will uphold neoliberal corporate interests upon election, and do support the candidate who genuinely wants to enact stuff that helps all of us. As much as you want to argue, the bottom line is Hillary won't do that if elected - it will be more of the same. And for the sake of our children and grandchildren we cannot afford that.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)PatrickforO
(15,424 posts)Just curious...
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)And since my discussion policy is to try to stay on topic, I skipped most of your reply.
marble falls
(71,919 posts)wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)A question was asked, I answered.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about that?
And why does anyone running for president have to wait to 'lay out' their positions on policies?
This interview is going to help Bernie who has no problem laying out HIS policies.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)them WHY you are qualified for the job by informing them of how you perform that job. It is a very, very bad tactic. We have no idea where she stands on any important issues.
It's clearly advice from those who know she cannot stand up against Bernie by talking about issues. So they decided it's best not to do that. And they think the people won't notice? They have a very wrong impression of the intelligence of the people.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)
karynnj
(60,965 posts)Who has little to gain by taking any risks. I would guess the only reason she did this interview is that there were growing demands she do so.
On something as complex as economic policy, saying to wait for the speech allows her to state her campaign's platform in carefully written words. This is a very cautious approach. ( Note this is not just HRC, the most extreme example was Edwards. In fact, even in debates he often used bits of his prepared speech when he could. )
I suspect her campaign will look for controlled events where she could look like she is spontaneously engaging to try to defuse any issue that she might be too inaccessible, while avoiding the press.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It's just hard to imagine it happening. It could only hurt her, she has nothing to gain from a debate. Since that is the case, I just can't imagine her going along with it.
Cosmocat
(15,424 posts)seriously, this is comical ...
morningfog
(18,115 posts)for a tentative aug/sept debate in Iowa.
Like I said, Hillary has nothing to gain and much to lose in a Sanders debate.
It is in her interest to not have that match up occur.
Cosmocat
(15,424 posts)She will attend whatever debates are set up.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Hillary.
This whole thing is ridiculous.
This is a typical Salon hit piece. I have not seen one positive article from Salon about Hillary, at least one posted on DU, which of course is no surprise
frylock
(34,825 posts)in support of an establishment Dem. Democratic candidates for president had already staged 3 debates during this period in 2007.
Cosmocat
(15,424 posts)They had three by this time in 2007, too, with one scheduled for next week ...
That evil hillary is keeping them from debating because?
frylock
(34,825 posts)Cosmocat
(15,424 posts)because it would mean caring about reality, which would hinder the evil hillary psychodrama you are are living.
George II
(67,782 posts)No, I don't wonder.
He just decided to be a "Democrat" a few weeks ago and now his followers are trying to dictate how they should schedule their debates?
frylock
(34,825 posts)I understand. It gives you a feeling of belonging.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I am sure the are working on a reason to exclude Bernie from the debates which Hillary "will attend."
I owner why they haven't scheduled the first debate yet.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Someone "unaffiliated" with the Clinton campaign will go to court to have him excluded.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)For example, if Bernie did a round table discussion in some town or on a news show, they could claim it was a violation of the exclusion clause and bar him.
Or they could invoke a new rule which requires registration as a Democrat. Or premise inclusion on reaching a certain polling number in the national polls in a way to exclude Bernie. Although I don't know who would clear that bar. It would just be a Q and A with Hillary.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)LOL.
Cosmocat
(15,424 posts)Everyone saw the freakshow it turned into for the rs in 2007, and it wore out even the ds, it got monotonous ...
But, yeah, evil Hillary keeping Bernie down.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I never said anything about evil Hillary keeping Bernie down. It's lazy and silly for you to say that.
The simple point is that Hillary has nothing to gain and much to lose in a debate against Sanders. If there were a way to minimize that risk, it would be considered. Such as fewer debates, later debates, limited topics and exclusion of troublesome candidates.
I'm not making predictions or claiming some conspiracy. Just pointing out the reality of the political score and risk. We'll see how this shakes out soon enough.
Response to morningfog (Reply #117)
Post removed
George II
(67,782 posts)How about late December or January?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)The DNC has said the Iowa debate will be in Aug or Sept. It should be. Debates started in Aug of 07. That's the schedule of modern primaries. The goppers have their august date set. I say the earlier and more often the better. Naturally, Hillary supporters want fewer (or none) and as late as possible to minimize the damage. If they were honest they would not want Hillary to debate at all, and certainly not Bernie Sanders.
What is your position on Bernie's inclusion in the Democratic Primary debates?
George II
(67,782 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Again, what is YOUR position on his inclusion in the Democratic Primary debates?
You dodged that question.
marble falls
(71,919 posts)supported by Democrats, Democratic candidates are voted for people who are overwhelmingly not members of the Democratic Party, the vast majority of voters who have been electing him to office are not Socialist or Independent, they identify as Democrats.
Curiously: are you now or have you ever been a card carrying member of the Democratic Party?
George II
(67,782 posts)...primary debates.
But I don't think someone who has for years felt that joining the Democratic Party was beneath him, nor his followers, should dictate when and how those debates should be conducted.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)But let me ask this - do you recall any candidate for the Democratic nomination for President ever participating in any Democratic Party debates who was not a Democrat?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It's a yes or no question, bub.
George II
(67,782 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)But not surprising. It would hurt your preferred candidate.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)marble falls
(71,919 posts)prevailing wisdom is the longer the lead, the more to lose in a debate.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)Man of Distinction
(109 posts)And the Establishment, after the debate in Aug in IA and NH, Bernie captures the lead going into debates 3,4,5 and 6, ends in a bang with Clinton on a long freefall and Bernie ready to take on the clowns.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)Sessions that are called "debates" in this country.
George II
(67,782 posts)...back to the first that I can recall, between Kennedy and Nixon.
frylock
(34,825 posts)aren't you excited to hear her economic policy proposal on Monday??
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)just have to wait for the debates or the footnotes to get...what....more sidestepping?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)do interviews, they whine when she does. No wonder she ignores the press.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and policy positions. Glad she did the interview but unlike Bernie she provided nothing of substance. She did not move towards her at all with here non-answers.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)She seemed amateurish and unprofessional. Even the questions she asked. CNN would have been better off with someone more experienced. But I guess everyone needs a start somewhere.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I miss actual journalists, now it is more just entertainment.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Sounds like that's what this was.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)will give rise to thread after thread of, "I don't believe her!"
BTW ... Bug Ups for the honesty reflect by this poster:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=431811
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)dominated by right wingers. Why are we seeing words that were intended to insult Democrats here?
I see no 'whining' I see people asking why a candidate who is running for the office of the POTUS, will not tell those from whom she expects to get that job, what her plans are should they give her the job. Is there a reason why people should not comment on that?
Why won't she talk about issues? THAT is what people want to hear, they don't want to hear a candidate telling them how pleased they are with how they are running their campaign. What does that have to do with the people?
But if that is what she wants to do, I am not complaining, as a supporter of a candidate who doesn't hesitate to talk about what the people are interested, I know this will help my candidate.
And that is why he IS my candidate because I know where he stands without any doubt on every single issue.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)outrageous outrage. I was talking about the media (including Salon), not Democrats. Seeing as how she's still miles ahead in each and every poll, dissing the media doesn't seem to be hurting her at all. How about the media quits whining and starts to ask substantive questions? Wouldn't that be nice for a change?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of the country that is getting to know Bernie right now is the NE. That was a strategy his campaign decided on and a very good one. So, where people are getting know Bernie, Hillary is losing points, fast.
As he goes out to the rest of the country and people begin to get to know him, the same thing is going to happen.
The ONLY reason why Hillary is leading, is name recognition.
And we are only talking about the Democratic Base polls. Even there Bernie is gaining on her which should not be happening if she was strong candidate.
I have seen only one Independent poll and Bernie beats Hillary by approx 10% even now when he is still a virtual unknown to most of the country.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)so I'm not going to waste my time anymore.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)NO bubble, and neither do the already large and growing supporters of Bernie Sanders. But if you want to dismiss people that way, that's not my problem.
I know I can point to my candidate's record if someone raises a question. I would think that you would want to do the same for your candidate, but to simply dismiss hundreds of thousands, no millions of people isn't going to win any votes for your candidate. Which isn't my problem. But I am winning votes for my candidate without even trying very hard.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Yet one of your group called Hillary supporters "Zimmermans"
where was your fairness and name calling outrage then?
Seriously this post was incredibly inane.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)attacks. When directed at ME I simply correct the record, and move on.
I am not a moderator here, I do not make it a mission to read every single comment that is posted here. What on earth gave you the idea that I belong to a group one of whom said something unpleasant, that I must know about, due to belonging to this mythical group?
It is not my job to search for comments but if I do see something that violates community standards at THAT point I have the option to alert.
It's hilarious that you think I saw this comment and was so unfair that I did not comment on it. Seriously?
I did not see it, and would not comment on it without a link being provided.
I personally refrain from personal attacks and I am the only one I am responsible for.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)funny, I have seen you post there.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in those groups.
What is your point? You are a member of DU so that means you are responsible for every word any DUer says! Does that make sense to you? You are responsible to what I am saying now because we both are members of this large group of Democrats. 
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)you do dribble on about stuff and so very very rarely offer any tangibles.
The poll would be great to see...not just for me, but for everyone.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)substantive? She could not even bring herself to answer that. I expect her long awaited policies she said she will bring out will be so vague to mean nothing at all if and when she actually releases them.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)MOnday, perhaps you should listen.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Do not expect any real specifics. More big flowery word salad will be more what I think will be said.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Hillary's deflection on tax policy with 'she's giving a speech monday'
She did not answer the substantive question. So lefty cannot complain about media not asking substantive questions, it's his candidate who can't answer policy questions in an interview.
Bernie does, even in hostile territory like O'Reilly
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)can't speak to me directly, but whatever. Tax policy and and economic plan are not something that can be explained in a 1 minute answer during an interview but if you want to complain about it, knock yourself out. I swear the worst thing about Bernie (who I happen to love as a senator) is his supporters. Where are the questions about income inequality, the supreme court decisions, how the republicans can't go a fucking day without some putting forth a law that make life harder for women (all things she talks about during speeches)? If you think a Democrat wont be better than Jeb Bush on the tax issue, there really isn't anything Hillary can say you want to hear.
And I'll complain about whatever I damn well please just as you apparently do.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Because, I don't see too many specifics from Bernie except to raise taxes. He has not delineated specifically which income brackets taxes should be raised or by how much, he hasn't said how much revenue that will be raised or specifically how much his pet projects will cost or which of his program(s) will benefit from the windfall to make the program(s) viable.
Unless Dems capture huge majorities in both Houses, he won't be able to implement jack shit. He doesn't know how to negotiation or manipulate the idiot GOP into concessions. He will not be able to implement anything by will alone or by flowery speeches.
I suspect regardless of the level of description of details the comparison to Bernie's details will be much more poignant. But we will see for sure when that speech is made.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Hillary could not even say that, I guess she has not stuck her finger up yet.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)yes, she said she would talk about it too. She has her own timeline for her releasing her details. Apparently what we are really arguing is her timeline. You think her entire platform must be presented NOW...she apparently thinks otherwise and the reality is that there IS plenty of time before the Primaries.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)The campaigning for the primaries are going on now. She does not have release all of the details as I agree that is not really sound bite material. But she should be able to at least answer some simple questions like Bernie does. I guess she will release her positions in her own time and limit anyone actually looking them over.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I absolutely don't understand why Bernie supporters are manufactuing some strange requirement that Hillary run her campaign the way Bernie is running it? Why she must disseminate information the way Bernie does it, include the topics Bernie includes, to use Bernie's timeline for events and policy disclosures. As if one method must surely mean up front honesty and the other clearly must mean nepharious lying and temperature taking.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Media doesn't ask questions of substance AND dismiss complaints that she didn't answer a specific question of substance with 'she'll talk about it Monday'
Bernie answers all questions except those asking him about other Dems, and he deftly switches those 'attack Dems' to discuss his policy on that issue.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that is not the kind of answer for an interview as tax and economic plans are too complex for sound bites (which I guess is what you are looking for). Try listening to a speech or go to her website. The worst thing about Bernie is his supporters who want what they want and want everyone to agree with them on everything. Like children.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)HFRN
(1,469 posts)but those who matter have selected her - who are *you* to question it?
*thats* what they're saying to you - 'get in your place and shut up'
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I see many of us just asking for some straight answers
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I just got off a thread that was claiming that merely saying Hillary is going to win and that Bernie can't win the general is trying to force Bernie out of the race. Like the Bernie supporters don't claim Hillary can't win every fucking day. The hypocrisy is pretty fucking stunning.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)in hearing someone talk only about themselves. Contrast her answers to Bernie's. He knows how to pivot to the issues, never taking bait.
George II
(67,782 posts)Sancho
(9,205 posts)When Hillary provides a thoughtful answer, it's ignored. What has Bernie said about a path to citizenship? Nothing. Actually, with Bernie you can't get a word in and if you do, he yells at you about some simplistic reason that the world is going to hell. His personality is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
The interviewer was asking dumb questions...emails??? Again???
Presidents are smart and make decisions. They don't spout off.
Sorry, but after listening to Bernie for years, he's finally getting on my last nerve. Not an awful person, but nothing new.
How many interviewers have ASKED Bernie why he didn't ever join the Democratic Party???? Was he stupid? Scared? Did he want the benefits without the commitment? Why does he expect support from a party that he shunned for decades??? Why not go after Bernie with stupid questions? Why not make a big deal over whatever he says? Emails, emails, emails...
frylock
(34,825 posts)Closing out a week of presidential candidates in Las Vegas rolling out their policy platforms on immigration, Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders called the nation’s policies on the issue “disgraceful.”
He criticized Republican proposals for reform, demanded a path to citizenship for undocumented residents and called for ending mass deportations.
Sanders, an Independent U.S. senator from Vermont, is an underdog chasing the Democratic presidential nomination. His speech today followed one on Thursday by the party’s frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Sanders’ Las Vegas visit marked his first significant statements on immigration policy of his campaign.
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jun/19/bernie-sanders-wants-expand-actions-limit-deportat/
Sancho
(9,205 posts)I'm glad he has seen the light!
frylock
(34,825 posts)Sanders was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act of 2011. To my knowledge, he has always been a proponent of immigration reform.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/952/cosponsors
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)It being how Clinton interacts with the media.
In reading GDP it's pretty clear Clinton has an on-going communications relationship with the media...it just doesn't include many interviews.
The media coughs up a variety of stories. The stories that have popular resonance or the potential to resonate are usually commented on by Clinton. This allows her to demonstrate to voters that she shares beliefs with us.
We vote for candidates we agree with...and as we build the sense of agreeing with someone it doesn't matter if it's about policy or helping a stray cat.
Policy statements can be divisive and public sentiment about policy often blows in the wind. A popular position taken one month becomes unpopular later. That can generate a messy written record over the long duration of a primary and general election season.
Seems natural to me that a person with a big lead will play it safe, avoiding potential hazards of divisiveness or fickle public sentiment about policy.
IMO Hillary doesn't want or need to make news with policy statements. She needs to develop in voters a sense that she's in the same place they are...she can do that mostly with safe comments on the news cycle that doesn't require roping herself to potentially difficult policy pinions.
She can safely be shallow on policy because she can link to pubic sentiment without getting into it.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)these are the same mistakes that made her a loser last time around
Giving non-answers to press and avoiding questions entirely is exactly the wrong behavior for a candidate for elected office who wants votes. It drips with contempt, as if answering questions is unimportant because your opinion is unimportant.
Come voting time all these chickens will come home to roost - again.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)"Commit to as little as possible" is a standard play out of the status quo politician's handbook. And it can work, if everyone else in the race is using the same handbook, but it's a double-edged sword. If there's another candidate in the race who isn't being vague, there's a danger that the politically safe candidate will be perceived as an opportunistic phony.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)she's still waiting on the specifics from the bankers and lobbyists who write them
HFRN
(1,469 posts)her position is naturally purely defense, there's nothing to gain and everything to lose
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)through the lenses of the media who have attacked her for at least a decade.
She is laying out her policies to the American people directly, through speeches, through small and large meetings, through the internet.
Bernie needs the media to gain exposure because he has no name recognition. That is why he goes on every show that will have him. Clinton went that route. This time she is running her campaign her way.
She has listed many positions. You just have to have the energy to read them, listen to them yourselves without having it spoon fed to you through red-colored glasses.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Is she for raising tax rates on the rich?
What corporate loopholes will she close?
Is she for tighter regulations on Wall Street?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)What is the planing on found as President, what corporate loopholes is she trying to close. What Wall Street regulations is she for. Yes is not an answer.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)......can't you just spoon feed them here?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Funny thing is that Clinton constantly gets criticized for not being specific enough about her positions on a number of issues, but she's probably been more specific on more issues than most other candidates in either party.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)Now you want me to spoon-fed you?
frylock
(34,825 posts)keep up the great work! 
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)If you were actually interested, there is a whole wide web world with all the answers you could ever ask for.
frylock
(34,825 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 9, 2015, 10:18 AM - Edit history (1)
1-Yes, she has said so repeatedly: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-top-hedge-fund-managers-make-more-/
2-Voted NO on tax subsidies for businesses that outsource: http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-fighting-for-americas-workers/
3-She hired a Wall Street regulator/watchdog in her campaign: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/clinton-campaign-hires-former-wall-street-regulator-for-top-finance-post-117068.html
gordianot
(15,772 posts)Tim may be deceased but is not really gone. The force is strong at CNN. Only relevant question did young Luke inherit the force from his father?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Interviews to show she has been working hard throughout her life. Times has named her one of the most influential people seven times. Does she need to brag on these events in her life? No, they speak for themselves. She has been a strong advocate and worked to help others up in her life because this is who she is. Did she get ask lots if questions about her policy, no.
HFRN
(1,469 posts)and not running for higher office at the time - particularly if she were in the *safe* period of a Senate seat, ie not having to run for re-election for a few years?
she's been outwardly equivacal about the TPP - does anyone really believe that?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Just thought I'd put that out there.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
kath
(10,565 posts)Yep, that bad ol' Salon is really right wing.
OY.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)She's certainly not the only politician to have mastered "cagey," but next to someone who takes on issues head-on, it's not exactly inspiring.
Gothmog
(179,822 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)She needs to speak to the people and let the media and the Repukes play with themselves. If you want to know how she feels on certain issues, do your homework. Don't expect Some schmuck on CNN or Fox to ask a legitimate question about policy.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)"NAFTA will reduce unemployment to 1% and make Mexico forever peaceful!" "H1B visas will double, no, TRIPLE IT employment and wages" "fracking means nickel-a-gallon gas!" some years later all is rubble and ashes, and they just shrug and power-walk away
all they CAN do
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)meaty questions? Seriously? Suddenly we just love the mainstream media around here, LOL. Bullshit we do.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It's the candidates job to get the message through the bullshit. They have to be prepared to flip the predictable bullshit answers into issue messages to the people.
Hillary is just not good at that. She talks about herself, she gets defensive and she blames others. All of that is a turn off. Attacking bad policies, promoting and framing good policies is the better approach. She talked about how people should and do trust her and that she had a plan. But, she didn't get to the message.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)hopefully he will do well with it. she is pacing herself. And they both have plenty of time.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)Probably a mistake if true.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)When Bernie gets asked about some stupid meta-process bullshit or is asked to characterize his opposition he pivots straight to policy.
Whereas Hillary happily talks about her campaign a lot and dodges questions about economics.
2banon
(7,321 posts) at HRC's non-informational interview ..
knr for attention to this classic example of who and what she is about.
