Skip to content

Preemptive Defensive

Matt Wuerker
© Matt Wuerker

In some ways, given the ferocious nature of right-wing media attacks against Obama, and even against her husband, I can’t blame Hillary Clinton for being careful around the press. Wouldn’t you be? It is a shame, because when I saw her talk at a private event, she was very open and answered questions freely and honestly. I wish she could do that with the media, but I understand why she is wary.




  1. ralph wrote:

    That’s certainly a valid point, the media have a way of spinning a story, or candidates in our never ending election cyles, to their own political narrative (cough*cough*FOX*MSNBC). But Hillary’s personal narrative goes way back, at least to when she headed up the healthcare initiative (or whatever it was called) back in her husband’s admin. Everything was hush-hush behind closed doors, very secretive; naturally, the whole thing was viewed with suspicion and ultimately went nowhere. Add in the real estate scandal, insider trading allegations, Lewinsky…there are so many real (and therefore imagined) skeletons in both their closets there’s a healthy skepticism in the general public that she is always being less than candid or upfront and is all about appearances over authenticity, polished and calculating. Nothing unusual about that in a politician, but she seems to have honed it to a fine art.

    Case in point:
    >> Hillary Clinton is private and guarded by nature, and three decades of being inspected like an exotic species has made her even more so…she is trying to share and expound on her experi­ences, to project some greater measure of herself, big and small…[but] She has resided at the center of so many scandals, psychodramas and culture wars that it’s hard to even keep track of them all, let alone know what the person within that bubble of attention is actually like.<<

    She and the rest of the clown car on the right, in playing their cards so close to the vest, may help explain the early appeal of a Sanders on the left or a Trump on the right. You may agree or disagree vehemently with their positions, but have to respect (using that term very grudgingly for Trump) their candid demeanor and transparency. There's no doubt we know where they stand and what they'd do (or try to) if elected.

    Hillary just doesn't pass the smell test with this voter.

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:07 am | Permalink
  2. ralph wrote:

    Update: In my snarky parenthetical comment, I didn’t mean to equate FOX and MSNBC, though that’s the way it probably came across. The former is clearly a spin zone (sorry Papa Bear) for the misinformed right wing, and MSNBC has its own devoted partisans (Matthews, Schulz), but I’ll take my news feed from them any day (and do), if sometimes with a grain of salt. Morning Joe and The Last Word are in a class by themselves and a model for how objective news and opinionated commentary should be done, IMHO.

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:54 am | Permalink
  3. Iron Knee wrote:

    Actually, I find it hilarious that people think Trump has a “candid demeanor and transparency” or that “we know where he stands”. Trump has changed positions on a dime if he thought it would get him more attention. Cases in point:

    He loved Hillary Clinton; now he thinks she’s the worst. He was very much in favor of abortion rights before he opposed them. And he might be running as a Republican today, but he was once a registered Democrat who called for legalizing drugs, a massive one-time 14.25 percent tax on the wealthy and staying out of wars that didn’t present a “direct threat” to the U.S. In many ways, he’s been to the left of Clinton and even Bernie Sanders on some issues.

    Click the link to see a video of Trump changing his position completely and then being absolutely unwilling to admit that he ever had a different position. He appears to be a sociopathic liar.

    On the other hand, your case in point doesn’t make your point at all. I’m tired of the media manufactured “Clinton has been in so many scandals so she must be devious and conniving” meme. You mean scandals like Benghazi?

    And you think their health care reform died because of the Clinton’s secrecy? It died because of an all-out facts-be-damned attack from the media. Do you remember the year-long barrage of “Harry and Louise” ads? What about the fact that “Time, CBS News, CNN, the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor ran stories questioning whether there really was a health-care crisis.”

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 8:35 am | Permalink
  4. ralph wrote:

    Ya, I take your point IK. By transparency in Trump’s case, what I really meant was you could see right through him! Trump is for Trump, the only thing he cares about in America is anything he can stamp his name on and profit from. There’s no question of his flip-flopping; well-documented, videotapes don’t lie (unless they’re Photoshopped, hehe). But changing parties and stands is a well-worm American tradition. Reagan, Spector, even Sanders The Independent, who used to be a registered Democrat even though he’s now running as one. Parties are fluid, character remains. I don’t begrudge anyone for changing their stance on issues, but Trump has always been a phony, albeit a wealthy one, regardless of party affiliation.

    IMO, both parties are kinda Frick ‘n Frack in many ways (though Reps more frackin’ awful no doubt), no wonder voter apathy is at an all-time high. They both talk their respective games, but in the final analysis are beholden to the same big moneyed interests. I think Obama is the best prez in recent memory, but how tough has he really been on curbing Wall St. interests and excesses? After all, didn’t he bring into his Admin. some of the same crooks who crashed the economy? Geitner, Summers, Paulson, etc. Goldman Sachs practically has a revolving door into the White House! It all gets back to too much money in politics, but I don’t see that changing anytime in the foreseeable, Hillary or not.

    I agree about Reps beating Benghazi all out of proportion and she bore the brunt of it, and still does. Shameful. Several bi-partisan investigations cleared her and all involved of any chicanery. Still, the attacks persist. Hyper-partisanship as usual. But I don’t recall a media blitz against health care reform back in the Clinton years, most have admitted serious problems there for decades, but I’ll take your word for it. You’d certainly expect it from the opposition, just as they still try to repeal Obamacare.

    Still, I can’t bring myself to feel warm and cozy about Mrs. Clinton, but I think she’ll probably win, and that’s a good thing compared to any of the right wing circus clowns.

    That’s my story and I’m stickin’ with it! 😉 Thanks for all the lively debates here.

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 12:21 pm | Permalink
  5. ralph wrote:

    BTW, love that video! Dem promos should play that non-stop!

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:53 pm | Permalink
  6. ralph wrote:

    …or any Repo candidate with balls.

    Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 7:54 pm | Permalink