Charlie Pierce has an amusing take on this, which might even be the campaign’s preferred topic this (preferred over the Foundation anyway).
“Because fck you, that’s why.”
I don’t agree entirely, but at least Charlie is funny about it.
No, kids, she doesn’t have to hold a press conference. In fact, as regards some sort of duty to democracy, she has less obligations to answer your questions than she has to answer the questions of a terrified Iowa farmer or the mother of an opiate addict in New Hampshire. As a member of the craft, I think it would be best for all concerned if she did but, at this point, the whining is setting off the alarms at NORAD and any press conference she held would result in a general square-dance of self-congratulation in every Green Room inside and outside the Beltway.
To the point:
There always will be “more questions.” There will always be another document, another source, another e-mail. The smoking gun always will be tantalizingly jusssssst a bit out of reach. That’s the way The Clinton Rules work. It seems like now the demands for her to hold a press conference have become the worst kind of political correctness—PC on the PC’s, you can call it.
I think she should do one. I am not so full of myself as to think she owes me one.
I’m going to take that small agreement and run.
Christopher says
I don’t get your obsession with this particular format, one of many available ways to communicate with voters. The press has been shown to cover her quite negatively, most obviously with there continued insistence that there just has to be something behind those “damn emails”. She HAS done press interviews which are more likely to be more substantive anyway.
JimC says
My “obsession” is merely transparency. Interviews are not necessarily more substantial; many of them are negotiated in advance and have “ground rules” (certain questions off limits, for example).
The Foundation would make a great topic for a marathon “All questions answered” press conference. To Charlie’s point, there will always be more questions, but she should welcome the chance to defend it.
johntmay says
I’d like her to answer a few questions, questions that “the press” will ask on my behalf. Are we not allowed to ask her questions?
Christopher says
…to attend her events or contact the campaign. People can find all sorts of info on their own these days without the media’s help. Besides, she talks to the press quite a bit, but in longer interview rather than conference format.
johntmay says
Sure, I get invites all the time from campaigns to attend things. The cost is prohibitive for people like me. Again, not just with HRC, with the whole damn party. Ladies and gentlemen, I make about $12 an hour thanks to the “new economy” that y’all have so carefully crafted over the past 40 years. And no, it’s not about “me”, it’s about the tens of thousand of people who are like me.
Christopher says
…you don’t necessarily need the money. I said “events” not “fundraisers”, which includes public meetings.
HR's Kevin says
You will have a MUCH better chance of actually asking Clinton a question at an event than either Trump or Sanders.
Peter Porcupine says
.
Christopher says
I’m not sure the others have used that format as much.
sabutai says
She couldn’t get two hundred people in a hall, I tell you. Your party’s candidate can fill them. Would bring in more if it wasn’t for the fire marshals. Horrible people. To be honest, probably all Democrats. She can’t get 200 people in Iowa, probably. If she ever went. Crooked!
HR's Kevin says
Clinton can and should have regular press conferences when she is President. Right now, I don’t see that it serves any political purpose other than to draw the camera away from the Trump clown show.
JimC says
That’s purpose enough!
Christopher says
When your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, get out of the way.
jconway says
The more and more it looks like an anti-Trump landslide, the more tempting it’ll be for voters to toy with third parties. Her field team is doing a great job downplaying that possibility and taking nothing for granted on the ground. PA and FL swund back due to outstanding field work and ad blitzes. But her surrogates and supporters should act like its Nader 2000 and not Goldwater 64′.
Christopher says
Work like it’s Nader and pray hard for Goldwater!:)
sabutai says
Hillary isn’t stupid. Remember how Obama let his critics get beyond a full lather before he shut them down with his birth certificate, released from a position of strength?
Hillary doesn’t need to do a press conference right now. Nobody is going to vote based on the hurt feelings of the Village, and nobody is going to care about this while Trump is trying to mainstream racism and Hillary is dealing with Foundation stuff.
If Clinton’s lead narrows, and people care about this, she will hold a press conference and wipe the floor with these people. It will be a campaign reset like her 11 hours of Benghazi testimony. But right now, why would she? She speaks to the press regularly and speaks to voters all the time. All you have is journalists sad that their visions of Pulitzers in the wake of riding campaign planes seem beyond reach.
JimC says
I believe, as apparently no one else on BMG does, that elected officials and candidates are obligated to answer questions from reporters. Obviously it’s not a literal obligation, but they should be available on a semi-regular basis to answer questions from the press.
Is the press perfect? No. But that’s beside the point. Are they fair to Clinton? We could argue that all day. (Our Republican friends believe they are firmly in the tank for her.)
So yes, she “needs” to hold a press conference, in my view. Like Charlie Pierce said, I know she doesn’t have to, but I think she should. Because accessible candidates are healthier for democracy. Candidates who are surrounded every minute by a) staff b) REALLY rich donors and c) handpicked attendees at closed speeches are living in a bubble. And yes, The Village is a real thing, with its own flaws and urban myths, but I’m with them on this. if she wants to be President, she has to act presidential, and presidents are expected to answer questions.
jconway says
And agree with it whole heartedly. It’s silly season around here, wait until Jan 21 and the same folks excusing her behavior now will be the first to complain when she sells one of their pet projects down the river. We saw this in the past when it was evil for Romney to appoint a Senate replacement instead of the voters but “necessary” for Deval to do the same “temporarily” to save ACA.
Nobody here will admit it, but those shenanigans played a big roll in Coakleys defeat. Oh and we couldn’t criticize her either in both campaigns until the day after, when everyone let their true feelings out. It’s this kind of naked partisanship that partly led me to my current gig. Imagine if Dubya never held a press conference during his entire campaign for the presidency in 2000
or 2004, oh the horror they’d say. How this undermines the press and democracy they’d say.
sabutai says
I will admit I have a fear that Clinton is doing a bit of Coakley. I don’t like reading how Hillary’s people are already talking about “running the clock out” and it’s not even Labor Day. Then again, she is opening campaign offices in Utah and Georgia, so I’m not sure that’s necessarily the case. Though she hasn’t stopped by jtm’s house (boohoo), she is talking to voters a lot more than Coakley did.
johntmay says
She was in the Bay State and from what I hear, hung out with Cher and a few multimillionaires. I’ve lived in this state for 15 years now and never ran into Cher; none of my friends or neighbors are multimillionaires. She could have just dropped by for a few minutes, maybe had a slice of pizza with a few of us at The Rome. You know, get to know the people. But no, none of that. No news conferences, no time for that. No visits to Franklin or Framingham. But hey, maybe she waved down at us when she “flew over”.
centralmassdad says
Shhesh, its a Presidential election. This is how a candidate should spend her time: Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, fundraiser, quick in-and-out fundraiser, repeat.
A Democratic candidate for President who spends time in August campaigning in Massachusetts is a bad candidate who does not understand that time is a precious resource. This would be almost as dumb a decision as having the Republican nominee spending his time campaigning in Mississippi.
Cher is not a resident of Massachusetts, so I suppose it is not all that surprising that you haven’t met her. However, bringing her in for a fundraiser in late summer, in Provincetown, is a rather brilliant way to do some big-gun fundraising in a particularly wealthy and enthusiastically anti-Republican community.
johntmay says
she’ll be running for re-election of her second term. And it’s not just her and it’s not Cher. Obama spent his summer vacations in the Bay State as well, but not with hoi polloi. Nope, he hung out with the folks on the Vineyard.
In short, I am looking for Democrats seeking office to be more like Pope Francis and less like Jim Bakker.
Christopher says
Granted I do have the advantage of living close to the NH line, but I have found ways to be in the same room with presidential candidates without paying for the privilege.
centralmassdad says
I saw Obama in Worcester. Shook hands with President Clinton in Boston.
Total cost to me: $0.00.
johntmay says
But you and I both know (well, I do and I hope you do) that what we get to see and hear is a world apart from what it seen and heard at closed door event and we have $27,000 to hand over.
Christopher says
…that won’t be exposed by a press conference either.
Peter Porcupine says
In fact, in the campaign of any Democrat, no matter what their stance, credibility, or transparency.
It is to serve as an ATM.
sabutai says
Clinton has done many interviews that get more in depth than the preening shoutfest that is a press conference. She answers questions from the press, far more than the Donald has.
What she has not done is the JV equivalent, where reporters line up their one-shot gotchas that any half-decent politician can bob and weave past for thirty seconds. Remember, it wasn’t the press conferences that do in lightweights like Sarah Palin — it’s the deep interviews that Hillary has already done.
I know that rituals are important to some people for their own sake. Press conferences are one of those.
JimC says
I find your attitude on this puzzling (and frankly, a bit condescending).
But anyway HRC released a list of 350 interviews she has done. 65 of them (nearly 20%) were with non-journalists, according to one of the journalists who covers her.
sabutai says
The main argument seems to be “she should do press conferences because we always have press conferences.” My attitude is “press conferences don’t really aid in the democratic process. Their main function is to make the most established press, those most in service to the powerful, feel good about themselves.” And the riposte is “but we always do them!”
So, yeah. Frankly, I would rather pick a random political blogger for an interview than Chuck Todd talking about whatever the cocktail party chatter was the night before.
JimC says
They have a purpose. Period! Sorry you don’t like them, sorry they’re not better. Humans are imperfect.
Let me ask you a question: If she’s elected President, do you think it’s OK if she dodges questions from reporters? If the answer is no, why do you excuse her now? She is leading in every poll, it looks like she’ll win.
sabutai says
Our disagreement seems to be about format. Hillary doesn’t dodge questions from reporters. She dodges press conferences. Two very different things. She has done literally hundreds of interviews, answered thousands of questions from journalists since announcing her campaign. Not to mention the series of debates.
What purpose do press conferences serve that other press-policymaker interactions don’t? What is a major revelation that has come out of a press conference? Trump and Palin have hurt themselves in interviews (the Trump-Pence one especially); his press conferences after primary victories never kicked anything up.
jconway says
Either they are beneath her since they are a format apparently beneath the dignity of the late talk shows and Sunday shows she has appeared on, or she is wise to avoid them since they would make her vulnerable. Which is it?
Seems to me the onus is on the defenders of her decision to prove why it makes sense. If they aren’t a big deal, and if she handled herself before a hostile committee, then she can handle a few reporters. If they aren’t a big deal, then it’s doubtful they will cause her any electoral harm. So the why not just do them and be done with it? It’s not like she can continue avoiding them when she if President.
sabutai says
No. You want to decide what a presidential candidate must do. So explain it. Why? I have said press conferences aren’t informative (didn’t say beneath her — your words). I’ve asked for counterexamples, conferences that kicked up useful information. None provided. Round after round, I’m being told Hillary must do a press conference ‘cuz we always do ’em. Full stop.
Yes, Clinton realizes it’s to her political disadvantage to do one. I’m saying that’s not a big deal for the reasons above. Should she decide to spend her time on this ritual, about as useful as pouring a cold one in a Pennsylvania taproom, she’ll succeed.
johntmay says
Twitter, Facebook, and a reality show TV star running for president. Hillary has an opportunity here to promote a true progressive plan for America if she has the insight, guts, and talent to do so.
johntmay says
We can invite her to the next Stammtisch in October. How could she say no? I’ve yet to make one. I’ll be sure to attend!
johntmay says
Only BMG members allowed. We have standards.
kbusch says
for goodness sake.
HR's Kevin says
The fact is that very few people other than the National press and her opponents are clamoring for such a press conference. She is talking to the press in many venues, and HAS been answering questions. It is dishonest to suggest that she hasn’t been answering questions. She has.
She needs to do everything she can to win this election and (sadly) having a press conference doesn’t help that. Anyone suggesting otherwise is not being realistic or doesn’t want her to win.
And its not like the press are sitting around twiddling their thumbs with nothing to write about.
JimC says
That’s my point.
As you know, a recurring refrain of the campaign is her extensive qualifications. I have trouble reconciling that message with
.. because dealing with the press is part of the President’s job, and a press conference should help her demonstrate that.
But I’m on vacation and will shut up now. Have a good week everybody.
Mark L. Bail says
n/t
kbusch says
the Iraq War would have been prevented had Mr Bush only given another press conference. The press, after all, had no other way to check the Bush Administration’s claims than by participating in press conferences and writing down those claims in their notebooks.
kbusch says
was for making the point with too much punch. Sorry, JimC, in the future I’ll aim to argue in a more mealy-mouthed way.
JimC says
And make you so sarcastic.
But I’m going to stop now.
kbusch says
The press really did fail us going into the Iraq War. If you reflect on questions of fact surrounding this election, there are a number of things worth pursuit.
For example, take Donald Trump’s claim that Hillary Clinton is a bigot because current policies have not been good at all for African-American citizens. Maybe the choice of words is wrong, but is there an underlying truth there or not? To what extent are conditions for African-Americans adverse and to what extent are Democrats or Democrats like Clinton responsible? The press has not explored that particularly. Instead we get a lot more of “OMG, saying she’s a ‘bigot’ is outrageous” or “This will hurt his standing among college-educated whites” or some other superficial, pretending-to-be news “analysis”.
From the point of view of a democratic citizenry, press conferences are at best a tool for us to be informed. Is it the tool we need now? Why? What do we expect we might learn from press conferences that we wouldn’t learn otherwise?
Christopher says
…where she gets to ask the questions. She can call on the AP reporter and ask why his organization published a highly misleading piece about Foundation donors getting meetings with her. Then she can call on the WaPo reporter and ask why that newspaper gave her four Pinocchios over her statements related to emails even though the FBI Director concluded she was being truthful. Those are just the two I can come up with without looking back at various articles on how the media make her look bad.
JimC says
n/t
johntmay says
Well, you know the rest.
Christopher says
I think it’s safe to say Hillary can take the heat better than just about anyone. She has certainly been provided plenty of opportunities to practice over the decades.
johntmay says
Doesn’t it!
TheBestDefense says
The FBI director did not say HRC was being truthful. He said she did not deserve criminal prosecution
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Comey was very direct in saying that she DID send classified info over her server, despite her repeated claims that she did not.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/
Stop making stuff up.
Christopher says
They’ve been called on it too. There were a grand total of three emails that bore classified markings at the time of transmission and even those were later found to be erroneously marked. Others were retroactively classified. From a moral standpoint she was as honest as anyone can reasonably expect absent clairvoyant powers. I absolutely hate your habitual accusations that I and others are “making stuff up” as if we are acting out of malice or intentional dishonesty. I’m standing by this one with out reservation.
One of many links I could have posted.
TheBestDefense says
You are still wrong Christopher. This is a direct quote from the Comey/FBI statement on the HRC emails (emphasis added)
Again, this is easily seen by just looking at the FBI website
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
At no time did Comey say HRC was entirely truthful in her public comments. She did not lie to the FBI but she did to the public. If you think Comey said she told the truth to the public, then give us the money quote.
Christopher says
I don’t know if there are any Comey quotes specifically about what she told the public either way since it wasn’t his job to investigate her public statements that weren’t under oath. My understanding is the quote you provide with the 110/52 figures has also been disputed.
Christopher says
…I also have to wonder whether you read it at all. The article clearly says the Comey found it to be a “reasonable inference” that she was being as honest as memory and expertise would allow. The 110 emails later said to contain classified information were NOT clearly marked as such and I don’t think we should expect HRC to read minds. There is also no indication that she has said one thing to the public and something else to the FBI. If the question is what did the Secretary know and when did she know it, she absolves herself with room to spare by that standard.
TheBestDefense says
Comey did testify in front of the Benghazi committee on July 6, 2016
It would be inappropriate for Comey to comment on any of HRC’s comments made to the media and in debates, but she was under oath when she testified in front of the committee so his comments to the Benghazil Committee were appropriate.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216#ixzz4Ia8wleAE
dave-from-hvad says
his testimony to Congress. Comey said Clinton’s statement to Congress wasn’t true that there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. That doesn’t mean he thought she was lying about it.
Comey also testified that not even an expert would have necessarily been able to spot those emails as classified because they weren’t properly marked. See this explanation of that exchange between Comey and Gowdy: http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-isnt-lying-the-fact-checkers-are/
kbusch says
There are plenty of questions that we want to press to be working on for this election cycle. With respect to Mrs Clinton, it would be nice to have a more crisp understanding of what emails went through her server, whether national security really was compromised in a non-ordinary fashion, and how to reconcile her and Comey’s claims. No one seems to have wondered about Comey’s Republican origins, for example. Likewise, one would like to know more about the Foundation, its work, its donors, and the relationship of the charitable work to the State Department if any.
With Mr. Trump, of course, there’s a long public history which goes beyond merely collecting his latest outrageous comments. It’s difficult to list all of what seems under-reported. Take housing discrimination. He was clearly involved earlier in his career. Have there been recent discriminatory practices? Or is there evidence he has reformed? What about New Jersey’s forgiving some of his tax debt? How did he get so many investors to get on board projects that later went bankrupt?
All of that is much more work than standing up from one’s folding chair to ask a slightly uncomfortable question and carefully collecting the answer, and then reporting on the tone in which the answer was given and whether the answer is likely to help win or lose the election.
johntmay says
With high unfavorable ratings, Hillary Clinton is only surpassed by Donald Trump.
Seems like there has to be a way for her to improve her image with such a low bar set by the Republicans.
sabutai says
Hillary has been under attack since 1992. It’s tough to undo 24 years of negative impressions — many self-caused, most not — in two months. Trust is easily lost and hard to restore.
Christopher says
…that a lie can make it half way around the world before the truth can even get its shoes on. Truth is, those who know her vouch for her without reservation.
Christopher says
….she holds the distinction of being the most admired woman for 20 straight years. Trump does not have an equivalent distinction.