Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (7 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

I dunno. Part of me wants to believe those numbers Squisition posted, and yet...

1. Iowans tend to be iconoclastic in these caucuses. They seem to love surprising people in the last second by choosing an underdog nobody saw. This is true of both parties.

2. Iowa doesn't have a history of liking Hillary Clinton. She came in 3rd, not 2nd, in 2008. People forget this. If Obama had not been in the race, there is every reason to believe that John Edwards would have won Iowa (he had basically moved there in 2006 just for this purpose.) Now with no Obama, Edwards' campaign would have fallen apart within a few weeks after Iowa due to the revelations about his girlfriend, but he would have won Iowa.

3. Nobody outside of the political class knows who Sanders, Webb, Chafee, or O Malley are. The debates this fall will change that. If Hillary stumbles, or somebody comes off as especially charismatic, Iowa could change. That happened in late 2007. Hillary was winning every debate pretty handily when suddenly she was confronted with a question about drivers licenses for illegals which she refused to answer. Her poll numbers went down, and Obama's shot up, all a month before Iowa.

I believe, very strongly, that Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination. But is she a shoo-in to win Iowa hands down? There's a lot of time between now and then.

Hillary will win IA & NH in the primaries.

The key is to win convincingly (I'm thinking at least 60+%) and generate excitement among the base for the GE. The Demos are already (I believe) limiting debates. The main thing is that she emerges without gaffs or somehow offending the most liberal/progressive by getting into it with (most likely) Sanders (and I think that last is very doubtful).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is pretty sad, from the NYT:

Since she declared her candidacy on April 12, Hillary Rodham Clinton has answered just seven questions from reporters. This is the first installment of a regular First Draft feature in which The Times will publish questions we would have asked Mrs. Clinton had we had the opportunity.

On Tuesday, at an event in Las Vegas, Mrs. Clinton laid out an extensive and ambitious plan to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, including expanding the Dream Act, which defers deportation for the children of undocumented immigrants, to include their parents, a step President Obama has not taken. Our question for Mrs. Clinton would have been: ...

IIRC the last time Hillary actually took a question was around April 21st.

Now the press is just going around reporting questions they would have asked if only given the chance. I'm starting to feel sorry for these guys.

 

[timschochet]

I have to say that there is one aspect of Hillary's failed 2008 campaign that seems to be repeating itself: According to Game Change, Hillary's plan was for Bill to stay silent and stay out of things during the campaign. Bill agreed, yet somehow couldn't keep his mouth shut, and kept talking away while Hillary's campaign people looked on frustrated.

Now here we are again. Only a month or so I read in several places that this time around Bill was staying out, going completely mum; in fact he had a round the world trip to go on as Hilllary started her campaign. Yet what happens? The Foundation gets criticized, a book attacking the Clintons comes out, and suddenly here's Bill here there and everywhere defending the Foundation, making wisecracks like "I gotta pay the bills!" and generally talking up a storm. And I'm guessing that once again Hillary's team is watching, dismayed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I have to say that there is one aspect of Hillary's failed 2008 campaign that seems to be repeating itself: According to Game Change, Hillary's plan was for Bill to stay silent and stay out of things during the campaign. Bill agreed, yet somehow couldn't keep his mouth shut, and kept talking away while Hillary's campaign people looked on frustrated.

Now here we are again. Only a month or so I read in several places that this time around Bill was staying out, going completely mum; in fact he had a round the world trip to go on as Hilllary started her campaign. Yet what happens? The Foundation gets criticized, a book attacking the Clintons comes out, and suddenly here's Bill here there and everywhere defending the Foundation, making wisecracks like "I gotta pay the bills!" and generally talking up a storm. And I'm guessing that once again Hillary's team is watching, dismayed.

I agree, why in the hell is he the one doing the talking?

 

[squistion]

The Demos are already (I believe) limiting debates.

They are holding six debates, that should be enough for Sanders and whoever else enters the race to make their point to the Democrats (or anyone else who hasn't made up their mind).

 

[squistion]

I have to say that there is one aspect of Hillary's failed 2008 campaign that seems to be repeating itself: According to Game Change, Hillary's plan was for Bill to stay silent and stay out of things during the campaign. Bill agreed, yet somehow couldn't keep his mouth shut, and kept talking away while Hillary's campaign people looked on frustrated.

Now here we are again. Only a month or so I read in several places that this time around Bill was staying out, going completely mum; in fact he had a round the world trip to go on as Hilllary started her campaign. Yet what happens? The Foundation gets criticized, a book attacking the Clintons comes out, and suddenly here's Bill here there and everywhere defending the Foundation, making wisecracks like "I gotta pay the bills!" and generally talking up a storm. And I'm guessing that once again Hillary's team is watching, dismayed.

He is being personally attacked (and also the Foundation is) so he needs to respond and if he doesn't then Hillary still couldn't win because critics would be saying that Bill is the puppeteer pulling the strings and she is speaking for him, not herself. If not for this Foundation "scandal" I doubt we would have heard much from Bill.

 

[Rove!]

http://jaybookman.blog.ajc.com/2015/05/06/hillary-talks-policy-gop-talks-scandal-repeat-ad-infinitum/

Hillary talks policy; GOP talks scandal: Repeat, ad infinitum

In Las Vegas Tuesday, Hillary Clinton moved to cement her standing among Latino-American voters by pledging to fight for "a path to full and equal citizenship." And if Congress refuses to act, as president, I would do everything possible under the law to go even further than President Obama has.

"This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side," she told a group of students whose parents face deportation. "Make no mistakes. Today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. Not one."

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to talk alleged scandal Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, emails, etc.

Its a matter of faith among Republicans that their intense, visceral dislike for Hillary Clinton is shared or can at least be spread among the American people as a whole. Theyre certain that if they just try hard enough, yell loud enough, stomp their feet vigorously enough, the rest of the world can be made to see her as the wicked villainess that they know her to be. Thats why theyre dragging her back to Capitol Hill this month to testify yet again on the 2012 tragedy in Benghazi, which they seem intent on turning into the most investigated and re-investigated event since the Kennedy assassination.

History, however, suggests that their approach may not work. It may be emotionally rewarding; it may succeed in firing up the GOP base. But as a strategy for winning elections, it doesnt have a strong track record.

Republicans took the scandal-based approach with Bill Clinton, who won in 1992 amid allegations of womanizing and then easily won re-election in 1996. In December 1998, when House Republicans vented their Clinton hatred with votes to impeach him, Clinton enjoyed a 73 percent job approval rating among the American people as a whole. When he left office in 2001, he exited with a higher Gallup rating than had Ronald Reagan.

Undaunted, the GOP applied the same strategy against Barack Obama, again expecting that the intensity of their hatred would somehow spill out into the larger electorate. Instead, Obama has become the first person to get more than 51 percent of the vote in two consecutive presidential elections since Ike Eisenhower. Today, Obamas Gallup standing equals that of Reagan at this point in his presidency and is on the rise.

But with Hillary, were told, it will be different. This time, Republicans are claiming that they will be able to redefine the former secretary of state in much the same way as the Democrats succeeded in redefining Mitt Romney in 2012.

Theyll certainly have the financial resources to make that pitch heard, but again, it seems unlikely. While Romneys image was still fairly malleable, Hillary has been on the political scene for close to a quarter century now. Her public image is well established, both pro and con, as is the Republicans animus against her. And by this point, I think it has become background noise for many voters. Theyve witnessed a long string of alleged Clinton scandals; theyve repeatedly witnessed those scandals come to little or nothing.

The boy has cried Wolf! so many times that voters are going to have to see an actual, living, breathing, 100 percent-authenticated, DNA-verified Canis lupus. And even then they may not believe it.

what drivel

now she says she'' go further than Obama, but I thought Obama went as far as a President could legally go?

you may like her positions, but she's dumber than Palin

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://jaybookman.blog.ajc.com/2015/05/06/hillary-talks-policy-gop-talks-scandal-repeat-ad-infinitum/

Hillary talks policy; GOP talks scandal: Repeat, ad infinitum

In Las Vegas Tuesday, Hillary Clinton moved to cement her standing among Latino-American voters by pledging to fight for "a path to full and equal citizenship." And if Congress refuses to act, as president, I would do everything possible under the law to go even further than President Obama has.

"This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side," she told a group of students whose parents face deportation. "Make no mistakes. Today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. Not one."

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to talk alleged scandal Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, emails, etc.

Its a matter of faith among Republicans that their intense, visceral dislike for Hillary Clinton is shared or can at least be spread among the American people as a whole. Theyre certain that if they just try hard enough, yell loud enough, stomp their feet vigorously enough, the rest of the world can be made to see her as the wicked villainess that they know her to be. Thats why theyre dragging her back to Capitol Hill this month to testify yet again on the 2012 tragedy in Benghazi, which they seem intent on turning into the most investigated and re-investigated event since the Kennedy assassination.

History, however, suggests that their approach may not work. It may be emotionally rewarding; it may succeed in firing up the GOP base. But as a strategy for winning elections, it doesnt have a strong track record.

Republicans took the scandal-based approach with Bill Clinton, who won in 1992 amid allegations of womanizing and then easily won re-election in 1996. In December 1998, when House Republicans vented their Clinton hatred with votes to impeach him, Clinton enjoyed a 73 percent job approval rating among the American people as a whole. When he left office in 2001, he exited with a higher Gallup rating than had Ronald Reagan.

Undaunted, the GOP applied the same strategy against Barack Obama, again expecting that the intensity of their hatred would somehow spill out into the larger electorate. Instead, Obama has become the first person to get more than 51 percent of the vote in two consecutive presidential elections since Ike Eisenhower. Today, Obamas Gallup standing equals that of Reagan at this point in his presidency and is on the rise.

But with Hillary, were told, it will be different. This time, Republicans are claiming that they will be able to redefine the former secretary of state in much the same way as the Democrats succeeded in redefining Mitt Romney in 2012.

Theyll certainly have the financial resources to make that pitch heard, but again, it seems unlikely. While Romneys image was still fairly malleable, Hillary has been on the political scene for close to a quarter century now. Her public image is well established, both pro and con, as is the Republicans animus against her. And by this point, I think it has become background noise for many voters. Theyve witnessed a long string of alleged Clinton scandals; theyve repeatedly witnessed those scandals come to little or nothing.

The boy has cried Wolf! so many times that voters are going to have to see an actual, living, breathing, 100 percent-authenticated, DNA-verified Canis lupus. And even then they may not believe it.

what drivel

now she says she'' go further than Obama, but I thought Obama went as far as a President could legally go?

you may like her positions, but she's dumber than Palin

Of course Obama had also said previously his hands were tied by the Constitution but then he went ahead and did it anyway.

Now Hillary says she can and will do more as president so we have no idea if she's full of it or if he is.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well this is the latest, Hillary on immigrants in 2003:

I am adamantly against illegal immigrants....

And people have to stop employing illegal immigrants ... Come to Westchester ... you'll see loads of people waiting to be picked up...

This is also the period of time when she was adamantly against gay marriage.

When do her policy stances become scandals?

 

[squistion]

Well this is the latest, Hillary on immigrants in 2003:

I am adamantly against illegal immigrants....

And people have to stop employing illegal immigrants ... Come to Westchester ... you'll see loads of people waiting to be picked up...

This is also the period of time when she was adamantly against gay marriage.

When do her policy stances become scandals?

Did Romney's? He flip-flopped on everything and when that was pointed out to his supporters on this forum, the response always was "So what?"

And the general public's views on gay marriage has changed considerably over the last decade, from against to now a slight majority in favor of - hard to criticize Hillary for that.

As far as Hillary's stance on immigration, Kos noted this today:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/07/1383158/-The-optimist-s-case-for-Hillary-Clinton?showAll=yes

The optimist's case for Hillary Clinton [...]

"On Immigration Reform, Clinton (pleasantly) shocked even the strongest reform advocates by advocating for reforms that go far beyond even what Obama has done on the issue. Latino media has been buzzing about her immigration forum for days."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well this is the latest, Hillary on immigrants in 2003:

I am adamantly against illegal immigrants....

And people have to stop employing illegal immigrants ... Come to Westchester ... you'll see loads of people waiting to be picked up...

This is also the period of time when she was adamantly against gay marriage.

When do her policy stances become scandals?

Did Romney's? He flip-flopped on everything and when that was pointed out to his supporters on this forum, the response always was "So what?"

And the general public's views on gay marriage has changed considerably over the last decade, from against to now a slight majority in favor of - hard to criticize Hillary for that.

As far as Hillary's stance on immigration, Kos noted this today:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/07/1383158/-The-optimist-s-case-for-Hillary-Clinton?showAll=yes

The optimist's case for Hillary Clinton [...]

"On Immigration Reform, Clinton (pleasantly) shocked even the strongest reform advocates by advocating for reforms that go far beyond even what Obama has done on the issue. Latino media has been buzzing about her immigration forum for days."

Romney was a poor politician (in my view)... he seemed to struggle with ideas like this. He had an inner core on economic issues, but little else.

You know what I read that Kos piece earlier today, thought about posting it here. I went there because I wondered if DK had anything on just this. I thought it was a good post actually because obviously Kos is getting behind Hillary and where Kos goes so goes much of the DK readership. I think the only thing that bothers me about is that Kos does not say Hillary has actually changed her views out of beliefs or values. He is just talking about her policy platform.

I am open and willing to debate and consensus on where the country needs to go. I would say how we resolve things is more important to me sometimes than what we resolve. Also, though I may not look like it, my mother's side of the family is Spanish, my grandfather came here through Cuba, I have cousins in Spain. New Orleans was hugely helped by hispanics who rebuilt the city, same goes for Houston when it was flooded back in the 90s. A lot of good hard working people. I love the Cuban and hispanic community here and it is growing, which I am happy about. My niece is about to marry a nice guy from a Central American country. Etc. I said my piece earlier up the thread about how I feel about this. I think on this kind of issue people who care should be appreciating and rewarding the politicians who fought and worked for whatever it is we are talking about or going to. Hillary just has the flavor, to me, of saying and doing the things she has said, and then when the tide of popular feeling finally turns oh hey here she is ready to pick up the spoils and then further pretend like her heart has changed. I know people will vote for her regardless. I will also point out that "triangulation bs" that Kos is talking about, don't be the least bit surprised if once Hillary hits clear seas (which we know she will), that she will tack back hard right for the general. I hear what Kos is saying, the country has changed, that seems to be his hook for saying that Hillary will stay left. Ok, I just don't think Hillary has changed one iota on the inside, she will go where the winds of good polling take her. Good luck to all of us on that.

 

[Johnnymac]

http://jaybookman.blog.ajc.com/2015/05/06/hillary-talks-policy-gop-talks-scandal-repeat-ad-infinitum/

Hillary talks policy; GOP talks scandal: Repeat, ad infinitum

In Las Vegas Tuesday, Hillary Clinton moved to cement her standing among Latino-American voters by pledging to fight for "a path to full and equal citizenship." And if Congress refuses to act, as president, I would do everything possible under the law to go even further than President Obama has.

"This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side," she told a group of students whose parents face deportation. "Make no mistakes. Today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. Not one."

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to talk alleged scandal Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, emails, etc.

Its a matter of faith among Republicans that their intense, visceral dislike for Hillary Clinton is shared or can at least be spread among the American people as a whole. Theyre certain that if they just try hard enough, yell loud enough, stomp their feet vigorously enough, the rest of the world can be made to see her as the wicked villainess that they know her to be. Thats why theyre dragging her back to Capitol Hill this month to testify yet again on the 2012 tragedy in Benghazi, which they seem intent on turning into the most investigated and re-investigated event since the Kennedy assassination.

History, however, suggests that their approach may not work. It may be emotionally rewarding; it may succeed in firing up the GOP base. But as a strategy for winning elections, it doesnt have a strong track record.

Republicans took the scandal-based approach with Bill Clinton, who won in 1992 amid allegations of womanizing and then easily won re-election in 1996. In December 1998, when House Republicans vented their Clinton hatred with votes to impeach him, Clinton enjoyed a 73 percent job approval rating among the American people as a whole. When he left office in 2001, he exited with a higher Gallup rating than had Ronald Reagan.

Undaunted, the GOP applied the same strategy against Barack Obama, again expecting that the intensity of their hatred would somehow spill out into the larger electorate. Instead, Obama has become the first person to get more than 51 percent of the vote in two consecutive presidential elections since Ike Eisenhower. Today, Obamas Gallup standing equals that of Reagan at this point in his presidency and is on the rise.

But with Hillary, were told, it will be different. This time, Republicans are claiming that they will be able to redefine the former secretary of state in much the same way as the Democrats succeeded in redefining Mitt Romney in 2012.

Theyll certainly have the financial resources to make that pitch heard, but again, it seems unlikely. While Romneys image was still fairly malleable, Hillary has been on the political scene for close to a quarter century now. Her public image is well established, both pro and con, as is the Republicans animus against her. And by this point, I think it has become background noise for many voters. Theyve witnessed a long string of alleged Clinton scandals; theyve repeatedly witnessed those scandals come to little or nothing.

The boy has cried Wolf! so many times that voters are going to have to see an actual, living, breathing, 100 percent-authenticated, DNA-verified Canis lupus. And even then they may not believe it.

what drivel

now she says she'' go further than Obama, but I thought Obama went as far as a President could legally go?

you may like her positions, but she's dumber than Palin

No, she's not.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Guys, I'm sorry, it's like a new item or more a day with Hillary:

Hillary Clinton's use of 'super PAC' may undercut her finance reform message

The candidate will be pushing the boundaries of campaign finance law further than any Democratic presidential contender ever has by directly asking donors to give to a friendly “super PAC” that can raise unlimited amounts of campaign cash from donors, according to a person familiar with her plans. That effort started in California on Wednesday, when Clinton met in San Francisco with potential donors of the organization, Priorities USA Action. She had another meeting in Los Angeles on Thursday.

Clinton's plans to raise money for Priorities USA was first reported by the New York Times. Campaign officials are declining to comment.

She attacks unaccountable money and then chases the same Super-Pacs she's attacking.

 

[FlapJacks]

Iowa voters in both sides of the aisle are the worst

 

[timschochet]

Iowa voters in both sides of the aisle are the worst

You mean you don't like Ethanol?

 

[timschochet]

AP- Hillary Clintom is "disturbed" about the NFL report that Tom Brady probably knew the footballs were inflated illegally during last year's AFC Championship game.

"It may not be a big deal in itself," she told reporters, "in that it didn't effect the outcome. But it's evidence of them lying about it. And given all of the other scandals the Patriots have been involved with over the years, I just don't see how anyone can ever trust this franchise again."

 

[squistion]

you may like her positions, but she's dumber than Palin

 

[Leviathan]

AP- Hillary Clintom is "disturbed" about the NFL report that Tom Brady probably knew the footballs were inflated illegally during last year's AFC Championship game.

"It may not be a big deal in itself," she told reporters, "in that it didn't effect the outcome. But it's evidence of them lying about it. And given all of the other scandals the Patriots have been involved with over the years, I just don't see how anyone can ever trust this franchise again."

Wait....what?

 

[skol asylum]

I'd vote for Belichik over Hillary. Imagine those exciting state of the union addresses. He'd probably figure out how to control half of the globe by the end of his first term though.

 

[squistion]

AP- Hillary Clintom is "disturbed" about the NFL report that Tom Brady probably knew the footballs were inflated illegally during last year's AFC Championship game.

"It may not be a big deal in itself," she told reporters, "in that it didn't effect the outcome. But it's evidence of them lying about it. And given all of the other scandals the Patriots have been involved with over the years, I just don't see how anyone can ever trust this franchise again."

Could you provide a link to that?

 

[timschochet]

AP- Hillary Clintom is "disturbed" about the NFL report that Tom Brady probably knew the footballs were inflated illegally during last year's AFC Championship game.

"It may not be a big deal in itself," she told reporters, "in that it didn't effect the outcome. But it's evidence of them lying about it. And given all of the other scandals the Patriots have been involved with over the years, I just don't see how anyone can ever trust this franchise again."

Could you provide a link to that?

No.

 

[cubd8]

Guys, I'm sorry, it's like a new item or more a day with Hillary:

Hillary Clinton's use of 'super PAC' may undercut her finance reform message

The candidate will be pushing the boundaries of campaign finance law further than any Democratic presidential contender ever has by directly asking donors to give to a friendly “super PAC” that can raise unlimited amounts of campaign cash from donors, according to a person familiar with her plans. That effort started in California on Wednesday, when Clinton met in San Francisco with potential donors of the organization, Priorities USA Action. She had another meeting in Los Angeles on Thursday.

Clinton's plans to raise money for Priorities USA was first reported by the New York Times. Campaign officials are declining to comment.

She attacks unaccountable money and then chases the same Super-Pacs she's attacking.

It is sort of a tough fight to take. She needs to compete with the Republicans, and even if she turned down all money and had no control/influence with any of the PAC's, they would just spend the money representing her.

Do Americans even care about this issue or is this an easy talking point?

 

[DocHolliday]

Its the hypocrisy.

However.

The Clintons operate above the law. Always have and always will. It does not matter what she says or does. She wins easily in 2016.

 

[FlapJacks]

Iowa voters in both sides of the aisle are the worst

You mean you don't like Ethanol?

Very few outside of Iowa do....

 

[FlapJacks]

I'd vote for Belichik over Hillary. Imagine those exciting state of the union addresses. He'd probably figure out how to control half of the globe by the end of his first term though.

Belichick is a very smart man, great strategist, and has a great relationship with his coworkers for the most part. He is probably about as trustworthy as any other pol...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm going to put this in the politics thread and not journalism's reports on the Clintons' misdeeds thread because it's about the political strategy in reacting to the reports:

Inside the 'Clinton Cash' war roomHow Hillary’s team worked furiously to attack, undermine and debunk the book that threatened to disrupt her campaign.

Behind the scenes, the strategy turned from defense to offense in late April, when the campaign caught a break and obtained an early copy of the 256-page book.

At that point, the campaign began pitching its own stories about “Clinton Cash,” and then finally turned to new media to tell its own version of the story.

Campaign operatives leaked single chapters of the book to national media outlets, sources with knowledge of the deals said — a strategy that allowed them to undercut the reporters who, through exclusive agreements with Schweizer, had obtained early copies of the entire tome, and also to attack the content at the same time.

The goal of aggressively parceling out parts of the book was to generate headlines that could be discredited before the book hit the shelves and before Schweizer went on the television circuit promoting his work.

Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and Fallon published their own posts directly to Medium, to point out what they said were errors and omissions.

During the weeks that various chapters of the book were making headlines, the campaign began releasing nightly memos to surrogates and supporters with stories and commentators on air who had discredited the book, or raised questions about the reporting. In total, the campaign put out five detailed memos to its network.

The final push came on the day of the book’s release. The campaign spent over 96 hours building out “The Briefing,” a website that launched on the day of the book’s release, which included an upbeat video featuring Fallon responding to the book and a supercut of Clinton surrogates and talking heads with the general message: “there’s no there there.”

So far, Clinton herself has answered only one question about the book, without referring to it by name. At a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month, she dismissed it and said she expected to be “subject to all kinds of distractions and attacks.” She has not addressed it publicly since then.

But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been on the minds of the staffers and volunteers who manned the war room. As Clinton was speaking about immigration reform at a high school in Las Vegas on Tuesday, her campaign operatives back in Brooklyn waited eagerly on the results of a new poll.

When The New York Times poll popped, showing Clinton’s favorability had risen over the past year, the team from the war room finally exhaled.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-2016-book-controversy-117774.html#ixzz3ZkY80JGN

 

[timschochet]

It's a good team this time around. Certainly Podesta is a vast improvement over Penn.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

NPR:

It's also a way for the campaign to release a controlled, scripted narrative instead of having Clinton herself answer questions about the issue. National Journal noted last week she has only answered a total of seven media questions since she became an official candidate. She twice dismissed allegations in Schweizer's book as "distractions," but she did not answer the charges directly.

For the Clinton campaign, this approach is "much better than actually trotting Hillary out somewhere and have her answer what might be tough or aggressive questions," Berkowitz said. "Release the video, and then you release the hounds."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's a good team this time around. Certainly Podesta is a vast improvement over Penn.

Podesta is the same team as before. Fallon is the new guy and it's a scarey trend where the tail is wagging teh dog. I think campaign consultants are almost running our government and elections now.

Also it may not be working.

Clinton is far and away the Democratic front-runner for president, and she still beats most of her possible GOP rivals in hypothetical head-to-heads too. But amid questions about the Clinton foundation and an earlier controversy about her use of a private email server instead of a government account while she was at the State Department, her polling numbers have suffered.

Since March, Clinton's unfavorable rating has risen 6 percentage points while those who said she was honest and straightforward have dropped 13 points in a year, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released this week.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/05/05/404500775/clinton-war-room-pushback-and-the-invent-your-own-media-campaign

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"Hillary Clinton has reportedly met with potential donors for her presidential super PAC, just three weeks after she criticized that fundraising practice. The super PACs name is Hillarys Political Action Committee for Democracy or HIPACRACY.'"

- SNL, last night.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's a really weird strategy, but maybe it's a good one. Don't take questions, don't answer questions with real reporters, do no national interviews with actual reporters. She has a big lead in the first minute of the game based on name recognition,so run the ball every down, just play defense, take no chances on offense, even if she's constantly punting, and run out the clock.

 

[timschochet]

lol at "run out the clock", she's a month in to an 18 month election cycle.

At some point she will probably have to answer some questions regarding this whole Foundation/contributions to Bill non-story. But if I were her, I would do exactly what's she's doing and avoid it as long as she can. I think she's perfectly innocent, but that doesn't matter- any answer she gives now will only bring added attention to the story: she can't win. Best just to shut up about it.

 

[Mister CIA]

lol at "run out the clock", she's a month in to an 18 month election cycle.

At some point she will probably have to answer some questions regarding this whole Foundation/contributions to Bill non-story. But if I were her, I would do exactly what's she's doing and avoid it as long as she can. I think she's perfectly innocent, but that doesn't matter- any answer she gives now will only bring added attention to the story: she can't win. Best just to shut up about it.

She's clearly playing not to lose.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

It's a really weird strategy, but maybe it's a good one. Don't take questions, don't answer questions with real reporters, do no national interviews with actual reporters. She has a big lead in the first minute of the game based on name recognition,so run the ball every down, just play defense, take no chances on offense, even if she's constantly punting, and run out the clock.

It is smart for this season. Let the GOP beat itself up until there's a winner. She'll probably go on offense as soon as it's clear who the R nominee is.

 

[timschochet]

lol at "run out the clock", she's a month in to an 18 month election cycle.

At some point she will probably have to answer some questions regarding this whole Foundation/contributions to Bill non-story. But if I were her, I would do exactly what's she's doing and avoid it as long as she can. I think she's perfectly innocent, but that doesn't matter- any answer she gives now will only bring added attention to the story: she can't win. Best just to shut up about it.

She's clearly playing not to lose.

Is she? I strongly disagree. She's already unleashed several new proposals: on campaign finance reform, on police treatment of blacks, on immigration- she could have stayed silent on all of this stuff until challenged (which is what she did last time on Mark Penn's advice.) She's been exceedingly pro-active on the issues. She's playing to win big.

 

[timschochet]

It's a really weird strategy, but maybe it's a good one. Don't take questions, don't answer questions with real reporters, do no national interviews with actual reporters. She has a big lead in the first minute of the game based on name recognition,so run the ball every down, just play defense, take no chances on offense, even if she's constantly punting, and run out the clock.

It is smart for this season. Let the GOP beat itself up until there's a winner. She'll probably go on offense as soon as it's clear who the R nominee is.

Shes on offense now.

 

[squistion]

lol at "run out the clock", she's a month in to an 18 month election cycle.

At some point she will probably have to answer some questions regarding this whole Foundation/contributions to Bill non-story. But if I were her, I would do exactly what's she's doing and avoid it as long as she can. I think she's perfectly innocent, but that doesn't matter- any answer she gives now will only bring added attention to the story: she can't win. Best just to shut up about it.

She's clearly playing not to lose.

Not true, as Kos noted in an article linked a few pages back:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/07/1383158/-The-optimist-s-case-for-Hillary-Clinton

"On Immigration Reform, Clinton (pleasantly) shocked even the strongest reform advocates by advocating for reforms that go far beyond even what Obama has done on the issue. Latino media has been buzzing about her immigration forum for days."

If she was playing it safe, I doubt she would have staked out her position on immigration this early, particularly when it is to the left of Obama.

 

[Paulymaggs]

Democrats have announced 6 Democratic debates starting this summer.

Likely

Hillary

Bernie

Martin OMalley

Jim Webb

Chafee

Why would Clinton even waste her time debating lightweights like these?

Wake me up when Bloomberg, Cuomo, or Biden announce.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Squiz my thoughts on that is she keeping competitors from entering the tournament with her policy initiatives.

 

[Mister CIA]

lol at "run out the clock", she's a month in to an 18 month election cycle.

At some point she will probably have to answer some questions regarding this whole Foundation/contributions to Bill non-story. But if I were her, I would do exactly what's she's doing and avoid it as long as she can. I think she's perfectly innocent, but that doesn't matter- any answer she gives now will only bring added attention to the story: she can't win. Best just to shut up about it.

She's clearly playing not to lose.

Not true, as Kos noted in an article linked a few pages back:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/07/1383158/-The-optimist-s-case-for-Hillary-Clinton

"On Immigration Reform, Clinton (pleasantly) shocked even the strongest reform advocates by advocating for reforms that go far beyond even what Obama has done on the issue. Latino media has been buzzing about her immigration forum for days."

If she was playing it safe, I doubt she would have staked out her position on immigration this early, particularly when it is to the left of Obama.

Yes, pandering to the Latino vote is very risky.

 

[Mister CIA]

Lots of flying monkeys in this thread.

 

[timschochet]

lol at "run out the clock", she's a month in to an 18 month election cycle.

At some point she will probably have to answer some questions regarding this whole Foundation/contributions to Bill non-story. But if I were her, I would do exactly what's she's doing and avoid it as long as she can. I think she's perfectly innocent, but that doesn't matter- any answer she gives now will only bring added attention to the story: she can't win. Best just to shut up about it.

She's clearly playing not to lose.

Not true, as Kos noted in an article linked a few pages back:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/07/1383158/-The-optimist-s-case-for-Hillary-Clinton

"On Immigration Reform, Clinton (pleasantly) shocked even the strongest reform advocates by advocating for reforms that go far beyond even what Obama has done on the issue. Latino media has been buzzing about her immigration forum for days."

If she was playing it safe, I doubt she would have staked out her position on immigration this early, particularly when it is to the left of Obama.

Yes, pandering to the Latino vote is very risky.

it absolutely is. Penn's urged her not to do it last time because he was afraid of her losing blue collar white votes in the general elections. That's what led to the whole drivers license flap which helped her lose Iowa. Being strongly pro-amnesty is still a pretty big political risk.

 

[Mister CIA]

Democrats have announced 6 Democratic debates starting this summer.

Likely

Hillary

Bernie

Martin OMalley

Jim Webb

Chafee

Why would Clinton even waste her time debating lightweights like these?

Wake me up when Bloomberg, Cuomo, or Biden announce.

If the goal is to waste my time, you are barking up the right tree.

 

[squistion]

Squiz my thoughts on that is she keeping competitors from entering the tournament with her policy initiatives.

Not really necessary because no one who hasn't announced yet has been polling well and her policy initiatives should actually encourage others to enter the race since they can state a position that distinguishes them from her instead of "I agree with Hillary" response.

However, even if that were true, then you would be wrong where you stated that she "take no chances on offense" Taking no chances would be staking out a position similar to Obama's, or to the right of Obama, so as to be closer to what her potential GOP challengers are saying.

 

[Mister CIA]

lol at "run out the clock", she's a month in to an 18 month election cycle.

At some point she will probably have to answer some questions regarding this whole Foundation/contributions to Bill non-story. But if I were her, I would do exactly what's she's doing and avoid it as long as she can. I think she's perfectly innocent, but that doesn't matter- any answer she gives now will only bring added attention to the story: she can't win. Best just to shut up about it.

She's clearly playing not to lose.

Not true, as Kos noted in an article linked a few pages back:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/07/1383158/-The-optimist-s-case-for-Hillary-Clinton

"On Immigration Reform, Clinton (pleasantly) shocked even the strongest reform advocates by advocating for reforms that go far beyond even what Obama has done on the issue. Latino media has been buzzing about her immigration forum for days."

If she was playing it safe, I doubt she would have staked out her position on immigration this early, particularly when it is to the left of Obama.

Yes, pandering to the Latino vote is very risky.

it absolutely is. Penn's urged her not to do it last time because he was afraid of her losing blue collar white votes in the general elections. That's what led to the whole drivers license flap which helped her lose Iowa.Being strongly pro-amnesty is still a pretty big political risk.

At best, it's a luxury position upon which she can afford to take a stand. And besides, there's nothing stopping her from modifying her position later on.

ETA: I think it's disingenuous to believe that Clinton does not bow at the altar of polling and statistical analysis.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Squiz my thoughts on that is she keeping competitors from entering the tournament with her policy initiatives.

Not really necessary because no one who hasn't announced yet has been polling well and her policy initiatives should actually encourage others to enter the race since they can state a position that distinguishes them from her instead of "I agree with Hillary" response.

However, even if that were true, then you would be wrong where you stated that she "take no chances on offense" Taking no chances would be staking out a position similar to Obama's, or to the right of Obama, so as to be closer to what her potential GOP challengers are saying.

The NPR article suggests her campaign is purposefully keeping her away from reporters' questions and national interviews by real journalists. I'd call that running up the middle every down.

 

[squistion]

Squiz my thoughts on that is she keeping competitors from entering the tournament with her policy initiatives.

Not really necessary because no one who hasn't announced yet has been polling well and her policy initiatives should actually encourage others to enter the race since they can state a position that distinguishes them from her instead of "I agree with Hillary" response.

However, even if that were true, then you would be wrong where you stated that she "take no chances on offense" Taking no chances would be staking out a position similar to Obama's, or to the right of Obama, so as to be closer to what her potential GOP challengers are saying.

The NPR article suggests her campaign is purposefully keeping her away from reporters' questions and national interviews by real journalists. I'd call that running up the middle every down.

Taking a bold position to the left of Obama on immigration is not running up the middle, no matter how you try to spin it. And you keep forgetting she is not Sarah Palin, in the 2008 campaign she had no difficulty talking to reporters and doing national interviews with real journalists. And did she avoid the press and not give interviews when she was SOS? (I don't recall people saying that if it were the case).

If she is going to win she has to run hard and as eventually she will do so, but there is no need to at this time, when Sanders is her only opponent and we have no idea who the GOP nominee will be. To say she is going to play it safe and do a Sarah Palin campaign until election day November 2016 is ludicrous.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I agree that would be a long time. When do you think she will start taking and answering reporters' questions then?

 

[Mister CIA]

Squiz my thoughts on that is she keeping competitors from entering the tournament with her policy initiatives.

Not really necessary because no one who hasn't announced yet has been polling well and her policy initiatives should actually encourage others to enter the race since they can state a position that distinguishes them from her instead of "I agree with Hillary" response.

However, even if that were true, then you would be wrong where you stated that she "take no chances on offense" Taking no chances would be staking out a position similar to Obama's, or to the right of Obama, so as to be closer to what her potential GOP challengers are saying.

The NPR article suggests her campaign is purposefully keeping her away from reporters' questions and national interviews by real journalists. I'd call that running up the middle every down.

Taking a bold position to the left of Obama on immigration is not running up the middle, no matter how you try to spin it. And you keep forgetting she is not Sarah Palin, in the 2008 campaign she had no difficulty talking to reporters and doing national interviews with real journalists. And did she avoid the press and not give interviews when she was SOS? (I don't recall people saying that if it were the case).

If she is going to win she has to run hard and as eventually she will do so, but there is no need to at this time, when Sanders is her only opponent and we have no idea who the GOP nominee will be. To say she is going to play it safe and do a Sarah Palin campaign until election day November 2016 is ludicrous.

She could, with one little two-letter word, deny the egregious charges when presented with a softball question. Instead she choose an awkward response.

She's trying to bake a dish and fumbling the step that says "Pre-heat oven."

Full disclosure, I'll likely hold my nose and vote for this retread in November 2016, but my god is she a dubious, uninteresting drone.

 

[squistion]

I agree that would be a long time. When do you think she will start taking and answering reporters' questions then?

I have no idea, probably whenever she and her advisers decide that it is necessary. She did agree to testify to Congress again about Benghazi and her emails, I imagine it would be then (whenever that is) as she would want to clarify what was said at the hearing rather than let others interpret it or spin it.