Like she gives a speech and reporters are supposed to copy down what she says during the speech. That's the interview.

You probably didn't realize a speech is an interview but it is.

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/606180824841646080/photo/1

In fairness, at this point Clinton does not need to do interview shows, which always come with some level of risk. In a speech, you choose both the issues and are able to frame positions exactly as you choose. In addition, a speech is using written by people with enormous ability to select inspiring words and phrases. Even politicians as innately talented in writing speeches, think Obama, have speech writers. One of Obama's best was Jon Favreau, who wrote parts of many memorable 2008 speeches. Hillary, intelligence as she is, has never had a natural eloquence.

She did do some select interviews when she put her book out -- and you might remember that for the week or so she did it, there were a spate of negative stories pulling out things that could be sensationalized - especially out of context. From that week, I would contend that interviews are not a HRC friendly outreach. (I can name any number of politicians - starting with Bernie who are better speaking to the media. Even ones the media mocks as gaffe prone really

Remember that there was a demand that built with people counting the number of days since Clinton took questions -- until she had a media availability. I expect that to reoccur. The point though is that when you are up to 50 points ahead, you can ignore calls for doing interviews.

I read in a book on Hillary Clinton that, as a lawyer, litigation was not her forte. A president needs to be able to think on his/her feet.

One of Theodore Roosevelt's great attributes (and also one of Franklin Roosevelt's) was his ability to build a rapport with the press. I realize that we have a very hostile press, but it seems to me that one of the most important tasks of a Democratic president is to deal with that very hostile press.

I question whether Hillary Clinton can really think well on her feet. This is one of the reasons I cannot in good conscience support her for president.

I think that rather than sending surrogates out there, she needs to give interviews. The press interview is how many of us who live in states like California that vote late in the primaries get to really know candidates. We don't get to sit in a room with a candidate very often. We don't get to ask our own questions.

Avoiding press interviews is like snubbing most of the country.

Bernie is being asked questions about Hillary all the time, and he answers them graciously. I want to see Hillary asked questions including questions about Bernie. Another concern I have about Hillary (and I think that others may have this concern too) is whether she can graciously concede that other candidates might win and do a good job.

I view Hillary's reluctance to do interviews and her reliance on surrogates as a sign of a great weakness in her capacity to do the job a president has to do. Certainly as Secretary of State, she met with foreign leaders and spoke without notes. Surely she can do that now. I want to know where she stands on the issues of now -- like the TPP, like other candidates in the race. Her speeches are nice but dryly delivered, impersonally propounded. I would like to see some interviews, gaffes and all.

I have always thought of HRC filling the role of the "A student who works extremely hard and does all the extra credit work" but not the creative, imaginative visionary who can find solutions where others don't see an opening. Nor is she the student who gets ahead by being so charming that people ignore that he didn't really answer the question asked.

What I don't get is why the powers that be fought to give her the election in 2008 and again this year. Not to mention, how many articles in late 2008 spoke of it being unfair if HRC just went back to her position in the Senate. (Contrast to the fact that a whisper campaign argued that Kerry was arrogant in 2005 to think he was in any way one of the party leaders - a position one would think he earned in 2004. ) Frankly, I just don't see her "specialness" to make up a word.

While Secretary of State, I did hear some of her speeches - but I don't think she chose to be in many negotiations where she would have to interact with her peers both on substance and on a personal level. She did do a great job on the more ceremonial side of the job where her celebrity did help Obama. However, it is hard not to see Kerry as the more natural diplomat.

As President, two things she will have to do is to speak to the public to push her agenda - often with the media and she will have to use her connections to Congress. One thing to remember here, when the Clinton people argue that she would excel over Obama on this, is that in the run up to 2008, it was many of her peers in the Senate who quietly backed Obama and encouraged him to run. All the while sources like the NYT wrote that she was greatly loved in the Senate.

I think she is probably a nice person, but she id not a good candidate.

And I utterly agree: the typical "A" student in high school and college. Very adept at learning to say what is expected of an "A" student. Not a quick, creative thinker. Some people have too much of the rebellious in them, and sometimes the rebellion is focused on things that do not further progress in society. Hillary has too little of the rebellious, of the free thinker in her. I think she sincerely wants to further progress in society, but I think she is personally in so many ways limited in her ability to get out of her box and to, as you suggest, solve problems.

It is hard to criticize her as Secretary of State. True. The results of her tenure at state were not stunning, but the problems she faced were almost insurmountable especially after our foray into Iraq (for which she voted???), but still. The handling of Libya was without grace or finesse, as was the handling of Syria.

I was a Kerry supporter in 2004. He inherited a mess in the State Department but seems to be applying a great deal of patience to reducing the clutter. I do not envy him his job. He has been underrated in the party in my opinion. But he too probably was not a good candidate for president. For a different reason. He does not come across as assertive enough. Bernie is down-to-earth and makes a good candidate.

It is a very unique approach she is taking. She knows they are going to go with their own narrative at all costs. She has no need at this point to do unscripted interviews. Doing unscripted interviews will help one to gain in name recognition, not favor. Big difference in the two. We all know that a majority of media outlets treat dem candidates like shit. She is getting a good portion of the press, simply from conducting her campaign, without the unscripted interviews. I don't think you will see her do many at all. Now or in the general if she makes it there. I have a great respect for this. They have savagely lied and attacked her for decades.

The corporate-controlled media should be ignored completely.

They carry water for the GOP.

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2015, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

of the press is.

The fact that the media is practically monopoly- or oligarchy- controlled is due in part to the communications sector legislation that Bill Clinton signed.

Bernie Sanders is doing a good job dealing with the media. For me, that is one of the pieces of evidence supporting my opinion that he would make a better candidate.

I was disgusted to hear that Hillary may be relying on surrogates to respond to media questions rather than risk saying something "wrong."

Those of us in states like California where we vote late in the primaries and don't have any opportunity to speak personally, shake hands or ask questions of candidates rely on the media to ask questions for us. We want to see how Hillary responds when she has to think on her feet.

This is important to me. Can Hillary really respond graciously, for example, when asked about other candidates, about people who oppose her, about ideas and people she does not like? And where does she stand on the TPP?

I cannot respect or vote for a candidate for president who can't answer the hardball questions from the press. It's ridiculous to run when you don't speak to the press freely. It suggests that you really aren't qualified for the job.

And I have questions there. Hillary Clinton was elected once to the Senate and served as Secretary of State for less than the term of a senator. That's less than 12 years in public office and only one (on edit, I should have said two Senate elections) successful election(s) behind her. That's not a lot of experience. Compare to Bernie's many elections, won and lost. Most of the "experience" that is attributed to her is in non-elected offices like First Lady and Secretary of State. She has only won one (tw) election(s) I believe and that was in the state of New York -- the state of Wall Street and the Niagra Falls.

Hillary needs to start answering press questions, I think. I can't believe she hasn't. I thought maybe I just missed it because I babysit and have had family issues.

I'm very disappointed at this news.

I have news on all the time. The most I've seen are surrogates who protest when anything negative is said. And they're not informed enough to answer questions put by the hosts. They've learned to copy the nonstop method of talking so that no one else can get a word in about another candidate or allow a negative word to be said from what I've seen.

Their main shtick is reciting the ratings with Dem and Rec candidates.

Maybe she's been on CBS, ABC or FOX, but not on CNN or MSNBC that I know of..