Lauer probably believes the answer is no, but nothing about this question would drive home Trump’s extraordinary lack of knowledge. Instead it allowed him to performatively demonstrate his confident, alpha-male reality show character as a prospective chief executive.I think Lauer thinks he has what it takes to performatively demonstrate his confident, alpha-male TV show character. I've only watched clips from the forum, and I found it off-putting, because Lauer was so disrespectful — interrupting and bullying — and the difference in how he treated Trump and Hillary makes his lack of professional journalistic gravitas glare.
Why did he decided to act that way instead of adopting a neutral demeanor and working through serious, substantive questions that would expose Trump's limitations? Maybe:
1. Lauer doesn't have the wit and heft to play the role of serious journalist on TV.
2. Lauer genuinely believed he could win a round of that old TV game show "Quien Es Mas Macho?"
Posts
91 comments:
Both 1 and 2. It takes wit and heft to realize you don't have to out-macho the other guy to prove your point.
3. Maybe he's just on Hillary's team and doesn't care who knows it.
Most of these interviewers suck--they can't seem to find any middle ground between "lapping sycophant" and "rude dullard". If you can't find a polite but professional manner to question your guest--and to "un-spin" what they're saying and keep them focused on what you want answered--then go back to interviewing celebrities on their latest film.
I didn't see last night's debate, so I don't know if that's an accurate criticism of Lauer or if the Prof is still in her "defend Trump at all costs" mode, but most political interviewers are unwatchable for this reason.
Lauer was a bigger tv star than Trump. Maybe he was irritated by Trump's lack of deference to his celebrity magnitude.
As a former Today Show viewer I suspect he learned this style of interview from Katie Kouric. She alwyas believes(ed) a hard hitting interview meant asking an obtuse question, then when you don't get the sound bite you're looking for interrupt the adverse witness and try and stuff the words in their mouth.
3 Lauer is afraid that if he asked Trump a reasonable, substantive question, Trump might give a reasonable, substantive answer.
Eight years living inside a bubble of alternate realty pontificated by Emperor Obama have reduced the Media stars to rubble.
The slightest hint of realty spoken about in an uncensored internet like Drudge and Britebart destroys the spell of that alternate reality they regurgitate. Its almost come to the point we feel sorry for Lauer and the Clintons. It's like watching witches melting away as truth water is thrown over them.
You know what's scarier Chait? This steaming pile you left at the end of your OpED:
"The average undecided voter is getting snippets of news from television personalities like Lauer, who are failing to convey the fact that the election pits a normal politician with normal political failings against an ignorant, bigoted, pathologically dishonest authoritarian."
And Lloyd Bridges es mas macho. In fact Lloyd Bridges is a perfect Donald Trump look like.
Lauer isn't more macho than Hillary. He's a bed wetter.
Report at Drudge that actor James Woods spotted an earpiece in Hillary's ear. Common in Hollywood. He tweeted a photo and a 2009 email from Huma to Hillary about a forgotten earpiece.
That's what you get from the star of Sea Hunt. I'd have gone with Broderick Crawford.
I wonder if Lauer was wearing an earpiece to get off-stage information like Hillary was?
http://www.infowars.com/was-hillary-wearing-an-earpiece-during-last-nights-presidential-forum/
If you remember that Laurer is simply a Democratic Operative with a byline, it all makes much more sense...
How delicious. Chait has an impermeable bubble -- and the Acela-corridor mindset is responsible for the rise of Trump -- of which he is completely unaware.
3. Matt Lauer is glib. (And doesn't know the history of psychiatry)
Juan Chwayne es el mas macho! Matt Lauer es un fiesta-muchacho con un viejo sexiest-hombre trophio. Hillary es mas macho que Lauer.
"I found it off-putting, because Lauer was so disrespectful — interrupting and bullying — and the difference in how he treated Trump and Hillary makes his lack of professional journalistic gravitas glare." Duh. It's disappointing, though, for all of us who had high hopes that Lauer would demonstrate his superior gravitas.
"Why did he decided to act that way instead of adopting a neutral demeanor and working through serious, substantive questions that would expose Trump's limitations? Maybe: 1. Lauer doesn't have the wit and heft to play the role of serious journalist on TV." Why, oh why? Why would a prog lightweight MSM "star" play favorites and fail to ask serious questions? It's a puzzle.
The funny macho thing is Obama getting all upset overseas that Trump dared to question his foreign policy.
There is nobody in this world except for Valerie Jarrett and Barack Obama who thinks Obama has a good foreign policy.
I just wanted to reiterate the obvious scandal of Hillary wearing a wireless earpiece last night. The pictures are everywhere.
But who cares?
Hillary's earpiece looks like shiny skin to me.
They, NBC, NY Mag, Lauer, Chait, are all part of the machine.
You aren't really seeing Lauer, Chait, NBC or NY Mag, any independent decisions on their part. They are just components acting as part of the mechanism.
HIllary was treated nice - hardly an interruption. Her answers made it obvious that she knew how to prattle off the lies with memorized fluency as if she knew the questions in advance - or perhaps given aid thru a transmitter.
Hilarious that the left think Lauer WASN'T biased ENOUGH.
I guess the left thinks Hillary can't handle tough questions and it would be unfair an sexist to expect her to, just like it was unfair and racist to expect Obama to.
Hilarious that the left think Lauer WASN'T biased ENOUGH.
That's what I got out of Chait's article as well. Chait is upset with Lauer for failing to take down "an ignorant, bigoted, pathologically dishonest authoritarian" while Hillary is "a normal politician with normal political failings."
Chait lecturing on journalism . . LOL
"her decision to follow Colin Powell's advice is a legitimate blot on her record". How neatly he disposes of the SOS's deliberate evasion of public records laws. Nothing to see here, folks, you non-consumers of elite news sources.
The debates will be rigged. I hate to sound like Trump - but hang on for major rigging. She will know the questions in advance + now we know she probably has an earpiece.
All that on top of the biased hack registered democrats who are masquerading as debate moderators.
Dems hate it when they get anything less than 100% subservient media treatment. If Obama got 1% of the media wrath Trump gets, he would melt like the wicked, ignorant witch he is.
Chait continues to blame a black man for Hillary's corruption? wow.
Powell never used a private SERVER in his BASEMENT. Nor did he use bleachbit to destroy records. Powell never set up a PRIVATE SERVER in order to hide pay-to-play schemes with international characters to enrich his own family.
or is Chait a f*ing democrat hack?
With it probable that Crooked Hillary was wearing an induction earpiece, the question becomes more and more, who is telling her what to say? It is almost these days that she doesn't know what to say, and, instead, her handlers just prop her up and talk for her using her voice.
Her answer about her emails was almost humorous in its misdirection, and likely, in that setting, to have been a lead balloon. If she had taken the mandatory classes and briefings required for State Dept employees, she would have known that her answer, that none of the emails had classified headers was BS. Esp since we have an email from her telling her minions to strip off such headers to ger classified information to her on her Blackberry (via her illegal private email server). It is even funnier realizing that her handlers had to tell her the lie over that induction earpiece.
But that gets to a problem that she is now having to face. It was bad enough for her, when asked about her vaunted experience, to be unable to provide specifics, beyond flying a million miles in four years doing something. We just don't know what, besides disclosing national security information via her use of her 13 (disappeared) insecure Blackberrys to access her illegal insecure private email server OCONUS (outside the US), where foreign govts control the phone systems she was using for access. But, if she can't remember anything about handling classified information, after 8 years in the White House, 8 in the Senate on a committee requiring a security clearance, and 4 as one of the four original classifiers in the federal govt as Sec of State, how can we believe that she remembers anything else of importance during that time? What good is experience, if she can't remember it?
This reminds me of the coverage of GW Bush in 2000 with the press openly screaming "Destroy this idiot! Don't just stand there!" WHile their hapless Gore stood around waiting to be anointed. The only difference this year is Hillary is going to have a DUI dump in the last 2 weeks before the election with wikileaks dropping another shoe.
Didn't watch. Did he happen to bring up Hillary giving out diplomatic passports, willy nilly, to members of the Clinton Foundation? Or how she lied on some show 'Who Wants to be President', that no American life was lost during her Libyan f*ck up?
I didn't watch the event but judging from the hysterical reaction of MSM participants like Chait and the NYT, it sounds like it wasn't a very good night for Hillary. Even the local news report this morning had to try and buttress the old girl by including a few remarks from Obama, like he's some kind of impartial observer on the election.
That's kind of why I skipped it. I knew it would be Lauer playing gotcha with Trump and footsie with Clinton.
Oh, hahaha, so it was the same event. Pardon me.
Bruce, I thought CNN reported Hillary and Co. took an actual hammer to those blackberries.
Chait is just a collection of gears and shafts driven by stepper motors controlled by a Siemens PLC connected to the factory system. Its a complex and clever machine but its just that. There is no "Chait" the human being, just the factory.
You cant talk to even a 5-axis CNC milling machine, cleverly wrought though it is, unless you are the one controlling it through its computer. You can yell at it or curse it all you like, but that is of course only useful to yourself.
Last night Hillary had an ear piece, yesterday it was a bid guy who comes to her when she freezes at the podium and carries a diazepam injector. The big question in this election is this, If Hillary is elected, just who would be the president behind the curtain?
It was a forum in which various veterans questioned the candidates as well as Lauer. As such it was never going to be a chance for Lauer to drill down.
"You cant talk to even a 5-axis CNC milling machine, cleverly wrought though it is, unless you are the one controlling it through its computer. You can yell at it or curse it all you like, but that is of course only useful to yourself."
LOL
If Team Trump really suspects Hillary will use an earpiece to get info radioed to her during a debate, then he needs to demand that both candidates be examined by the opposing candidate's handlers beforehand to make sure they don't have such devices. I remember Democrats complaining when they thought Bush was using a wire back in 2004, but it turned out it was just part of his bulletproof vest.
Besides, can you imagine getting info piped into your ear as you're listening to a moderator's question and formulating an answer at the same time? I don't see how that would work without an absurdly long pause between question and answer.
Entertaining the conspiracy theory that she was wearing an earpiece is yet another "shiny object" distraction.
Claiming that she cheated is an admission that she gave the correct answers.
Do you really want to admit she gave the correct answers? If not, then un-distract yourself from today's shiny object, and focus on her answers.
@Annie - apparently Crooked Hillary minions attempted to destroy two of the thirteen Blackberrys with a hammer. The problem, of course, is that just hitting a phone with a hammer will typically not make the information on the phone unrecoverable. Recovering that sort of information is done routinely by govt agencies like the FBI. And, yes, that was only 2 of 13 of her private insecure Blackberrys.
Secretary Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton……. Guess the movie reference.
I've looked at the pictures and live video and to me at least, it's just a reflection from the stage lighting.
If that's true about the hammers, that really destroys any attempt to pretend we don't know the intent, doesn't it? The intent was to destroy information BEFORE outside parties that were legally allowed and obligated to review it did so.
"Besides, can you imagine getting info piped into your ear as you're listening to a moderator's question and formulating an answer at the same time?"
Why listen to the moderator at all? Just regurgitate the earpiece prompting.
There are 13 "devices" not accounted for. If staff bought them for Hillary! on E-bay, maybe they re-sold them there too.
There are, or were, 2 Blackberrys that a staffer smashed with a hammer - thus accounted for.
3 more "devices" accounted for in an unspecified manner, to make up a total of 18 "devices" known to have been used by Hillary! while in office.
Have not watched yet. Am disappointed no news of her falling down during coughing fit.
If she is getting info through earpiece (doubtful) best bet is for Trumps team to hack into it and broadcast the info as she receives it live during the debates. Now, that would be funny !
Something seen in a picture is a conspiracy theory. The new Leftist dictionary--changing by the second.
It was there to talk her out of a Parkinson's brain freeze--if and when it happened. The Debate organizers should inspect her ears and pull out any earpieces with a pair of tweezers next time.
Did he happen to bring up Hillary giving out diplomatic passports, willy nilly, to members of the Clinton Foundation?
From: Doug Band
To: Huma Abedin
Sent: Jul 27, 2009 10:32 AM
Subject:
Need get me/ justy and jd dip passports
We had them years ago but they lapsed and we didn’t bother getting them
From: Huma Abedin [Huma@clintonemail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:38:39 PM
To: Doug Band
Subject: Re:
Ok will figure it out
I haven't seen any evidence that they actually got diplomatic passports issued to them, though.
"The average undecided voter is getting snippets of news from television personalities like Lauer, who are failing to convey the fact that the election pits a normal politician with normal political failings against an ignorant, bigoted, pathologically dishonest authoritarian."
I think this is the first time that I've seen someone refer to Donald Trump as "a normal politician with normal political failings." The rest of the sentence I agree with.
It also seems to have been missed by most people that there this week was published evidence that the Platte River Networks employee who was supposed to have wiped Hillary!'s server "with a cloth or something" remembered that he had forgotten to do so when he saw a notice that the House committee had issued a request for her e-mails along with a "do not destroy" order, and notified his employers. There then was a flurry of activity between PRN, Clinton, Inc, and the lawyers, and then - almost a month later - the server was sanitized with "Bleachbit," the Blackberry's still in the office hammered, etc.
I would think this would be big time if people were capable of paying attention.
Brando said: Most of these interviewers suck--they can't seem to find any middle ground between "lapping sycophant" and "rude dullard". If you can't find a polite but professional manner to question your guest--and to "un-spin" what they're saying and keep them focused on what you want answered--then go back to interviewing celebrities on their latest film.
Exactly. We noticed it immediately. The session with Hillary was interesting because Lauer actually asked pertinent questions about her misuse of classifed material and her actions as Sec of State. However, he let her ramble on and only interviened to cut the time so they could ask another question. Otherwise she was prepared to make each answer a marathon. He was respectful but also lost any control over the process.
While the Trump segment he (Lauer) was rude, interuppted Trump whenever he tried to answer and Lauer was combative, arguing with Trump. Also shoving words into Trump's mouth. The contrast was startling and obvious that Lauer had an agenda.
What Lauer did, attacking Trump instead of letting Trump answer was a reflexive Lefty technique and it really did backfire on Lauer. BECAUSE.....had he just let Trump ramble on like he did with Hillary, it is probable that Trump would have not come off quite as well. A rambling Trump is really not a good thing to listen to or to see. However, by playing attack dog and arguing with Trump, it made Lauer look worse and Trump look better.
These lefty interviewers just can't help themselves.
In addition, as pointed out, Hillary appears to be wearing an ear bud and probably was getting her answers frantically fed to her from aides in the back room. Either that or she is deaf and wearing a hearing aid. So......Which is it Hillary. Are you cheating or are you deaf? "Enquiring" minds want to know :-)
Odd that Matt Lauer didn't go after Trump for infidelity, given Lauer's likely affair with Giada de Laurentis.
I seem to remember Lauer admitting in court that the rumors of the affair were true but cannot find an online citation. There were denials, of course. But then there was a chance for perjury and the lying lies were exposed, if memory serves. But I could be wrong about that.
Another issue that we noted was that when Hillary sat down at her seat there were TWO cups of something in coffee cups at her position. Lauer had one, she had two. When Trump was seated there was just one cup at his side and one at Lauer's.
Why does Hillary have two cups.
According to Megyn Kelly's show Tuesday night, this information was pulled out of the FBI's document dump Friday night, so the FBI has known about this for some time too.
Surely there will now be some prosecutions, people will go to jail, and lawyers - in and out of the Government - will lose their licenses to practice?
I don't mind that he was so contentious with Trump. I would like to see our media be more, "in your face" style of reporting when it comes to politicians and government officials.
I do mind that he was so deferential to Hillary.
This tells me I've got to vote for trump. The media will go after Trump. They will treat Hillary like a queen. And I want my media to be attack dogs, not servile little puppies.
"Why does Hillary have two cups."
-- I thought Trump didn't drink caffeine/coffee, so it could just be one is water, one is coffee. Overall, I doubt it is anything important.
Ok. I did just read The Hill's article about a phone being destroyed with a hammer.
That's... there's no spinning that.
Bosses tend to be gadget happy, but 18 "devices" in 4 years is a lot, and those are just the ones there is some record of, so that they have to admit she had them.
So what happened to the 13 "unaccounted for"?
Does Hillary! just have a habit of forgetfully leaving them behind when she leaves some place?
Why did he decided to act that way instead of adopting a neutral demeanor and working through serious, substantive questions that would expose Trump's limitations?
Why didn’t Lauer throw a bunch of “gotcha” questions at Trump? Could it be that Lauer reviewed Trump’s post-primary debate polling and realized that gotcha questions do not work very well against Trump and decided to go for the usual straight propaganda questions that contain the assumption that Trump isn’t qualified for the office of the POTUS in their premises?
I wonder what would happen if some interviewer would hurl questions at her that would expose Hillary’s “limitations?” I mean other than email and server questions that they HAVE to ask because much to their despair it has permeated the news for months due to Hillary’s own stupidity – or arrogance – or both …
But THAT would never happen, would it, readers? The ONLY tough, serious, substantive questions asked of Hillary will be those they absolutely HAVE to ask or lose what little journalistic credibility they have left. And those will be asked only reluctantly, with much psychic pain and with the deference always given to Democrat party royalty. Hillary’s little campaign airplane press contingent press conferences that are not really press conferences illustrate this principle very well.
… by playing attack dog and arguing with Trump, it made Lauer look worse and Trump look better.
Yes. But here’s the mind-blowing aspect: They do not realize they are giving Trump more supporters because of their obvious bias. It’s wonderful! They are INCAPABLE of refraining from overreach. It’s in their DNA. It’s what they ARE. It’s what they DO.
I would not be surprised if Trump got a bump in the polls from this latest performance.
This is why you don't buy used phones:
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-04-07/news/29392684_1_blackberry-users-amit-nath-zeus-trojan
If true that Hillary's assistants purchased Blackberrys from eBay, then they had no way of knowing if a trojan had been installed on the phone by the eBay seller. And of course, her old Blackberrys are lost, like a fart in the wind, so we cannot even check them after the fact to see if they had any trojans.
But instead of focusing on Hillary's lack of understanding or concern of intelligence security and how that might disqualify her from a high position of power and trust, let's all focus on the shiny spot in Hillary's ear!
"Why listen to the moderator at all? Just regurgitate the earpiece prompting."
Actually you're on to something--you notice how no matter what the question, the candidate always just says whatever talking point they had planned? Ask me about the environment, I'll tell you why my opponent takes corporate cash!
We'd probably learn more about the candidates if we just watched them play each other in ping pong for an hour.
My question wouldbe why did she use a few for only a few days.
Her staff kept buying old model Blackberries on eBay. She didn't like any of the new ones.
I bet Trump has access to many NYC gossip networks that have dirt on the Network whores.
But Trump holds back using it to keep the threat of using it later current. (E.g., He would have known about Megyn Kelly's affair with Britt Hume.)
Ann poses 2 alternative possibilities for Lauer's approach, but I think the answer is "Both of the above."
Lauer's "gravitas" is like helium, and his ego is like an immense mountain.
I forced myself to watch the whole thing.
It is funny to read the criticisms of Lauer this morning from the Left- one almost gets the sense that the only thing that would have made them happy is if Lauer had walked up to Trump and tried to bitch-slap him. Lauer played right into my expectations for what he would try to do, and it backfires because people on the Left have a seeming inability to imagine how such behavior is going to appear to anyone not already voting for Clinton.
And let's be honest- the real animus from the Left against Lauer this morning has nothing at all to do with how rude he was to Trump compared to Clinton- the real animus seems to stem from that first question Clinton got. For some reason they seem to think Lauer had some sort of control over that- I am willing to wager that Lauer expected the man to ask some other question. It wouldn't surprise me if it is learned at some point that the man trick Lauer into giving him the floor.
Their is also another purpose for the letter animus this morning.
They are putting the others on notice. Theyd better go after Trump in the debates, or else!
"It is funny to read the criticisms of Lauer this morning from the Left- one almost gets the sense that the only thing that would have made them happy is if Lauer had walked up to Trump and tried to bitch-slap him. "
Ok but admit that if there was actual bitch slapping going on we'd all want to watch.
"the real animus seems to stem from that first question Clinton got. For some reason they seem to think Lauer had some sort of control over that- I am willing to wager that Lauer expected the man to ask some other question."
The issue there I think was that NBC should have screened the audience questions to make sure Lauer would have asked questions the audience wouldn't have covered. Otherwise, it's the same question asked twice in a row.
The better approach is getting each side to pick the interviewer for their opponent, to ensure good questions. But good luck convincing them to do that.
Brando,
I think it likely that they did screen the questions beforehand, and the man who threw it in Clinton's face that she got deferential treatment a more lowly staffer at State wouldn't have received probably told NBC that he was going to say/ask something else. He probably knew that if he were honest, he wouldn't be selected.
Lauer, in my opinion, had no choice but to ask questions about the e-mails. In an ad hoc, next-to-the-plane "press conference", "journalists" can ask a candidate about polls and other soft-ball trivia, but Lauer was more exposed in the forum event- he does care, to some extent, about his reputation. Really, Clinton was extremely lucky he was nice enough to not ask the really good followups her continued lying raised. However, the fact that even Lauer felt it necessary to raise these questions is a danger signal to Clinton- she won't be able to dodge the questions going forward.
Chait's criticisms are kind of silly, in my opinion. He and others seem to think you can take Trump down by asking him deep-insider and arcane policy questions and make him seem stupid. However, most Americans in both parties probably realize that Presidents really don't have know all this minutia. It pretty much always ends up looking like some egg-head, or more likely a faux egg-head trying to play a "Gotch" game. That is what the Gary Johnson thing this morning looks like. With Trump, Lauer tried another approach to taking Trump down, and I don't think it works either. Constantly interrupting is simply rude, and it looks that way to most anybody. I have a hard time trying to figure people in the media out.
And before I leave this thread- just a few more points.
(1) I thought Clinton showed her best fashion sense since her DNC acceptance speech. For the first time in a month she didn't look like a North Korean fashion model.
(2) I thought Trump's speaking style was the warmest and softest he has used to date. Usually, he has a hectoring kind of style- and loud. Almost the stereotypical New Yorker. I don't know if he has a vocal coach or not, probably not, but if he does, he should continue to listen to that person. At times watching it this morning, it almost looked like Trump deliberately chose this style because he knew what Lauer was going to try to do. The contrast is what was striking, and it highlighted the deficiencies in Lauer's approach.
(3> On substance, both candidates were awful, but Clinton is the one tied to present policies, so Trump wins simply for that reason. On style, Trump won almost solely because of how Lauer chose to approach him. However, for me, the real indication of who had the better night comes from Lauer's most vocal critics- they are almost without exception on the Left, and that tells you they did not think Clinton had a good night, and are looking for scapegoat. All in all, I though Lauer did a decent job simply because I expected him to do even worse. Reading Chait's critique makes me even more sure of my opinion in that regard.
Yancey Ward said...
....However, for me, the real indication of who had the better night comes from Lauer's most vocal critics- they are almost without exception on the Left, and that tells you they did not think Clinton had a good night, and are looking for scapegoat
Allahpundit:
"Pulverizing Lauer is their way of warning Lester Holt that he’d better be all over Trump at the first debate"
The better approach is getting each side to pick the interviewer for their opponent, to ensure good questions. But good luck convincing them to do that.
Yeah, that WOULD look better, as in more like a real debate – which these structured interviews, alternating between hostile and obsequious, depending on which candidate is being interviewed – are NOT.
Real debates would not have moderators asking loaded questions or commissions dictating who participates. Questions would be entirely up to the debaters. What we have instead is an extended group interview process controlled by a biased media from the primaries through the general election campaign(when it usually gets down to only two candidates in the final interviews). It’s as phony as any other reality show but the problem the MSM/Democrats/NeverTrumpers have is that Trump is a past master at reality TV. That is why he is always declared a loser by his opponents(which is almost everyone but the voters) but always polls well after each “debate.”
The MSM moderators could easily give Hillary the questions beforehand without much danger of being caught. Still, there is that chance. Everyone on Hillary’s debate team would know about it. If someone told a spouse who told a lover who told a relative, etc. … who knows exactly who would find out about it?
So I don’t believe they would take that chance. After all, although they HAVE to ask her one or two questions about the emails and server, they can allow her to lie without follow-up, they can ignore the other scandals and they think, mistakenly, that they can be as hostile and unfair to Trump as they want; it’s open season on Trump for them and they live in the progressive approval bubble.
Lauer should stay on morning TV where he is more qualified to interview Justin Bieber and discuss skinny jeans or whatever the newest fad in NYC is.
I'm skeptical about Crooked Hillary's "ear piece". I don't blame anyone who does believe it, why wouldn't they considering the Clintons' history?
Trumps red eyes were created by the technicians at the debate.
Hillary is obviously sick. Not sure why she doesn't just step aside and let Sanders run. She could win and then step down for Kaine?
We know who Trumps wants for the Supreme Court who does Hillary want?
I would think these days one could wear wireless earbuds that are invisible.
Grackle said...
"The MSM moderators could easily give Hillary the questions beforehand without much danger of being caught."
Why not? Is there any doubt that Attorney General Loretta Lynch gave Bill Clinton the FBI questions in advance on the tarmac, agreed to not swear in any of the investigation targets, agreed to have DOJ attorneys present to support Cheryl D. Mills' claim to be both a co-conspirator in the private server scandal while at the same time being Hillary Clinton's attorney, FBI agents to sign non-disclosure forms and no transcripts of the interviews were to be made. WTF, is there anything not corrupt about these people?
I didn't watch, but in the aftermath, plenty of people were complaining about Lauer browbeating Clinton by spending an inordinate amount of time on her emails.
When I read Lauer was going to moderate this forum, I laughed out loud.
"The average undecided voter is getting snippets of news from television personalities like Lauer, who are failing to convey the fact that the election pits a normal politician with normal political failings against an ignorant, bigoted, pathologically dishonest authoritarian."
Okay, I'll bite: Who's the "normal politician with normal political failings" and who's the "ignorant, bigoted, pathologically dishonest authoritarian"?
Transcript of the NBC Commander-in-Chief Forum, live from the Carrier Intrepid, hosted by Matt Lauer:
http://time.com/4483355/commander-chief-forum-clinton-trump-intrepid
Matt Lauer asked about judgment, but Hillary Clinton only wanted to talk about steadfastedness and temperament.
these two things are independent of issues.
When Matt Lauer continued talking about judgement, she defined "judgment" as Donald trump not willing to admit he had taken a "wrong" position on going to war with Iraq.
Hillary Clinton wants, as much as possible, to run an issueless campaign when addressing the general public.
Hillary Clinton:
With respect to Libya, again, there's no difference between my opponent
and myself. He's on record extensively supporting intervention in
Libya, when Gadhafi was threatening to massacre his population. I put
together a coalition that included NATO, included the Arab League, and
we were able to save lives. We did not lose a single American in that
action.
That's thw NATO action. benghazi was over a year later.
Hillary Clinton talked about suicide among veterans as if most of that was among young and recent veterans. She did have the statistic right - 20 a day, not the earlier estimate of 22. trumpo had it right once in a prepared speech but was back to 22 on his own.
They are not going to get ground troops. We are not putting ground
troops into Iraq ever again.
She means regular army.
Donald trump:
I was totally against the war in Iraq. From a ── you can look at Esquire magazine from '04.
Which was about one year after the war started.
You can look at before that.
About a month before a summary or description of what was in the Esquire interview was printed somewhere else.
Puzzling statement:
And if you look at what happened, look at the aftermath today where the
people that arranged the trip in Mexico have been forced out of government. That's how well we did.
That's Trump describing how good a negotiator he is.
He added:
TRUMP: And that's how well we're going to have to do, Matt.
FullMoon,
If that is the lesson Holt takes from the criticism, Trump will be delighted. Clinton's supporters can seemingly only imagine how a die-hard Clinton supporter will view things.
An aggressive approach will only work if the one being attacked is passive by nature. You can describe Trump with lots of adjectives, but passive isn't one of them.
Trump:
Russia wants to defeat ISIS as badly as we do. If we had a relationship with Russia, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could work on it together and knock the hell out of ISIS? Wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing?
NO!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/middleeast/syria-aleppo-chlorine-attack/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/25/assad-regime-isis-chemical-attacks-syria-un-investigators
But that’s certainly the angle Putin wants us to take.
Post a Comment