« Honestly, has Hillary finally lost her damn mind?? | LuxVeritas's Blog | It's Official, Ralph Nader Gets Off On Democrats Losing »
Hillary Can't Answer The Most Basic Question!!
Today a reporter FINALLY asked the most obvious and basic question, aside from "What is this experience, specifically, that you have that you think makes you so much more qualified than Senator Obama?",:
Reporter: Your campaign has made a big argument that you have won in the big swing states and this makes you a more viable candidate in the general election. Could you just explain that logic because if Obama lost in Ohio that doesn't necessarily mean he will lose in a general election As well Al Gore and John Kerry both won Pennsylvania in a general election. So could you just explain that argument?
Okay, so here we have the question that everyone in the media should have automatically, reflexively asked when she started making her "big state" argument that her performance (narrow wins) in the Democratic primary somehow means ANYTHING for the general election, despite the clear evidence from all the polls which suggest Obama actually does BETTER than her in nearly every state she was won, including all of the big "important" states. So her answer? She talks around the question, repeats her unfounded talking points, and in no way answers the basic question that was asked of her:
Click here to read more
Reporter: Your campaign has made a big argument that you have won in the big swing states and this makes you a more viable candidate in the general election. Could you just explain that logic because if Obama lost in Ohio that doesn't necessarily mean he will lose in a general election As well Al Gore and John Kerry both won Pennsylvania in a general election. So could you just explain that argument?
Okay, so here we have the question that everyone in the media should have automatically, reflexively asked when she started making her "big state" argument that her performance (narrow wins) in the Democratic primary somehow means ANYTHING for the general election, despite the clear evidence from all the polls which suggest Obama actually does BETTER than her in nearly every state she was won, including all of the big "important" states. So her answer? She talks around the question, repeats her unfounded talking points, and in no way answers the basic question that was asked of her:
Click here to read more
Advertisement
Imagine that. I'm just shocked someone in the media asked it, even if they didn't follow up on it at all. It is pretty sad that she is basically basing her reason for being in the race on electability now, yet the media won't even point out that the logic of her assertion doesn't hold up to common sense, or comparison to the polls. Good post!
March 16, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful. "Can you just explain that logic?"
No she can't.
I hope that using incomplete articles with a "click here to read more" link to drive traffic to another site doesn't become a popular thing here. But this is something that everyone should see. The emperor has no logic.
March 16, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wasn't at all the point. As far as I know, I can't embed video on TPM, I've seen others try it and fail and it ends up a mess, and since you can't edit your posts to fix them, I just linked to the full response with the video. It has nothing to do with driving traffic, it isn't like I have any ads.
Anyway, I'm glad you liked the content.
March 16, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about the embedded video. Thanks for explaining, and sorry for jumping to conclusions.
March 16, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That poor reporter is likely out a job now.
March 16, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This video honestly reminded me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALIARHHLII
Not because HRC isn't articulate (because she is), but because she is merely working important half-talking points into an answer that has nothing to do with the question.
March 16, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, the lack of even the most basic follow-up is galling. I watched the Clinton rep on Meet the Press today deflect questions about the Clintons' financial records by saying that asking such questions would give fodder to McCain in the Fall. Russert continued on as if that were a perfectly acceptable answer.
March 16, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, yeah, isn't that some shit? Yet he can go after Obama raising ridiculous questions about Farrakhan, even though there was absolutely no link and no controversy. Gotta love that media bias, against Hillary.
March 16, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of hate all "electibility" arguments because we should be picking our favorite candidate. not who we think is most strategic. Heck, even if we are supposed to be thinking "strategically" our record is so bad that we should probably just not.
But, this post misstates the pro-Hillary argument here.
It is NOT that Obama as the general election candidate, would lose the big states that went to Hillary in the primary. New York and California and the other big blues will go to Obama if he's the nominee. I love Hillary and live in NYC but if Obama is nominated I will vote for him with a smile and so will my Hillary loving friends. We all know that will happen.
And that's not what the Hillary camp is arguing about.
Instead they are saying that a lot of Obama's primary wins have come in states that we will not win, no matter who is nominated. They're saying not to get excited over the Democatic primary in Mississippi because it's going red in the general.
That's likely true.
As I said before... that's no way to pick a nominee, though.
My only point is that Hillary isn't implying what people here seem to say she's saying. She knows damned well that hr big blue state supporters will support Obama too. She's just warning, rightly, that some of the stark red states where Dems voted for Obama won't turn in the general. It's a fair point. But if those states had gone for my woman in the race instead of for Obama, I wouldn't count on them in the general either.
March 17, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, have you listened to her? She has repeatedly made the argument that we need to win the big states in the general, and the fact that Obama "can't" win them, and she has won most of them means we need to elect her, because she is the most electable. Of course she also attacks from the other side and says every state he wins doesn't matter, but she very very very clearly has been making the argument that only she can win these states in the general.
But you are right about one thing, she does know damn well that Obama can win these states just as well, if not better than her, in the general election. She knows that, but she lies to the voters by telling them something completely different, completely backwards. That's her position.
March 17, 2008 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
If electability doesn't matter (and I can respect the argument, even if I don't agree with it), then no one should mind Nader running in '08 (or mind that he ran in '00).
In all fairness to you, it's quite possible that you personally have no problem with Nader's past or future campaigns. It's my impression that this is not true for the majority of Democrats, although I'll admit I have nothing more than my "gut" to back that up.
(I will definitely agree that electability shouldn't be the sole criteria. Otherwise, we should just nominate McCain. We'd be guaranteed a win, of sorts.)
March 17, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your assertion about Obama winning ins states we can't win in the GE are not accurate. VA and TX are two HUGE states which are very much in play with Obama as the nominee which are not in play if Clinton is. The fact, which you acknowledge, that Obama would win CA and NY regardless, means he can play OFFENSE in VA and TX which pulls McCain out of FL, OH and PA and makes him fight to retain the "red" states of VA and TX.
To use a football analogy, it is damn near impossible to win a football game if your you never have the ball and are always on defense. Obama allows us to call plays with us having the ball in their red zone (pun noted) for a change.
March 17, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone can demonstrate empirically how the result of an intra-party contest affects the results of an inter-party contest I will eat my hat. Fifty percent of party nominees lose the general election, right?
We already know from social science research that even when A is preferred to B and B is preferred to C that if can be true that C is preferred to A. So the idea that if all you know is Bis preferred to C it tells you nothing about A vs. B, and A vs. C.
March 17, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judgment and character are much more relevant than "experience."
Experience is a false narrative. Every crisis is different. Experience is not an indicator of how a person might cope with stressful situations, address complex situations and make difficult decisions. Maintaining reasoned logic and rational thinking has nothing to do with years of experience. Unintended consequences are the direct results from errors in judgment regardless of experience. Years of experience do not translate into wise decision-making. i.e. Cheney, Rummy, etc..
No amount of experience actually prepares a person for the presidency nor emergency situations. We need to trust the president, while under intense pressure during crucial moments will contemplate the situation using reasoned logic and intelligent clear thinking tempered by patience before making a critical decision. While we may not know for sure, however, the candidate who has maintained an even and consistent temperament through-out his or her campaign may be the best gage we have.
Character is measured in deed not word alone. If a person's words are commensurate with their actions confidence as a trustworthy and forthcoming individual is merited.
Character and judgment are inter-active. We can ill-afford to elect a person who continues to make the same decisions expecting different results, fails to prepare for unexpected events, uses excuses to shift blame elsewhere for bad decisions and refuses to take responsibility for the outcome.
A person's experience has no relevance in the absence of character and sound judgment.
March 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is immense interest in the democratic party in all 50 states. Hillary has no use for any of the states that didn't vote for her. Her neglect and disinterest in those states shows serious lack of judgment.
Let's just look at the rise of the Republican party to national prominence: it started with Reagan, with the help of the religious right, by winning congressional seats, one district at a time, in any and all states. It was this effort that helped turn a blue state like Texas red, and it gave them the majority they needed. Obama's support of democrats in all of these states will help put together the majority needed to pass any of the 10-point plans of any democrat.
There are purple states that Hillary avoided that could turn blue, states where Obama paid attention. She's only looking at the past and has no ability to adjust to anything different than her usual methods. It's one of the things that disturbs me about her potentially becoming president.
And by the way, Obama won some serious swing states: Missouri, Wisconsin and potential swing states like Virginia, even Georgia, Colorado. To discount that we could change how the electoral maps is stupid -- it would speak to mandate instead of just the coasts voting blue.
It's ridiculous to say that any democrat wouldn't carry New York, New Jersey, California. It's absurd. Just like Hillary would carry Illinois, even though Obama beat her by 32 points and Hillary only won New York by 17 points.
Some of the Reagan democrats who have voted for HIllary are going back to McCain, no question.
Barack needs to make a much better case to working class Americans. He did it in Illinois to great success, needs to use those same skills.
After we get past the orgy of hate circulating right now. God.
March 17, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink