Andrea Mitchell interviews Hillary Clinton

Politics & Elections
1

If you can sit through a commercial, the full interview (~30 min) is here.

I was surprised by this interview. Two things- Andrea Mitchell tried her hardest to ask the most painful questions, and Hillary Clinton looked good.

I have not been impressed with Hillary so far this time around. I have found her kind of annoying. I have not much cared about the e-mail scandal, I’ve been waiting for some kind of criminal accusation before I take too much interest, but I have had an issue with Hillary seeming a little robotic, not-in-the-moment.

Well, Mitchell basically asked her about that, too. At first, Hillary behaved in exactly that annoying way. But then she just kind of shed it.

She was very articulate. She had big-picture ideas about how to address the world’s problems. She seemed an experienced high-level player in current events, highlighting her contributions to the Iran deal and other international negotiations.

For me, I’ve been hung up on her annoying presence, so maybe I am more sensitive to improvement in that area. There was still something weird about her, but it came across more as a political asset than a personality flaw. She is all but entirely unemotional, unless it is to project a constant pleased confidence. It doesn’t even seem like her breathing or heart rate ever vary. Her demeanor seemed so mastered, I thought at one point she must have had botox treatment. But then, just for an instant, it looked like she did something you couldn’t do on botox, which reinforced the idea that she displays an extraordinary degree of demeanor control.

I always go back to the classical modes of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. Hillary presented a relentless appeal to logos, something I would think I’d endorse. It was convincing. It was also a little inhuman- her eyes don’t move around naturally like other people on TV. She doesn’t react to damning questions in the way you would expect- she doesn’t seem to react at all, to anything, but just dishes up articulate answer after articulate answer. It is still a little off-putting, but it is also an approach that seems to have merit for someone who would occupy the highest office. A couple times I thought she was doing her own take on Obama’s zen-calm (before he really started enjoying being the lame duck, anyway).

I wasn’t impressed before. This time she seemed competent. She swiped at Trump, concluding, “That’s not how I am going to conduct myself.” She seemed to make her manner a part of the debate, and it seemed like a good point.

What do you guys see?

2

Just as you say, it varies, but sometimes her lawyerly instincts come on a bit strong. I saw a good deal of the interview off and on at different times and thought overall she did quite well.

Although Andrea didn’t dwell on it, I thought the question (as best I can remember) about how few of the billion Sate Dept. emails were actually saved was a bit of a cheap shot. I supposed in theory the buck stops with her, but I thought “is she supposed to manage the IT department?; how about janitorial services?” Big F-ing surprise that government IT in general sucks.

3

OMFSM, fully half the interview was on her emails. That’s as bad as the interview I saw of Bernie Sanders, where every one of Mitchell’s questions was about HRC. Anyway, I found Hillary’s calm and controlled demeanor presidential. I hope that in 2016, as in 2008, the “no drama” candidate is the one best positioned to win. Obviously, other voters’ opinions will vary.

4

An old lady who thinks she is entitled to the job, and will say whatever it takes to get it.

5

Hillary or Andrea? :smiley:

6

“No drama” as in actually calm and even-tempered, or “no drama” as in well trained enough to hold it in until the candidate gets behind closed doors where the actual decisions are made? Hillary’s temper once out of the public view is pretty well documented.

I find that relying on the public demeanor of a candidate to decide who to support is to basically buy what the campaign team is selling. As with any candidate, it’s their record that matters and predicts how they will behave as President. And given her record it’s pretty hard to believe she’s not running on my side. Guess it’s just too crowded for her?

7

I would disagree some. Public demeanor is part of the job. The President is our communicator in chief as much as anything else. Both to us (or else achieving any agenda will be even more difficult) and to the rest of the world.

8

How would that be documented?

You’re opposing (and reviling) her anyway, then, because, well, what? That D after her name?

9

Her record is pretty mainstream Democratic on most things. Not that this is always a good thing, but it’s much better than Republican policy on most issues.

10

Yes.

Along with maybe 90% of politicians, 90% of national “journalists” really should be put on the B ark.

11

It’s part of the job, but their performance in their actual jobs is a better predictor of their performance than how well they keep cool on the campaign trail. Besides, with Clinton, she’s not all that good so her true feelings tend to slip out or she acts in ways that are obviously an affectation, such as that crazy lady laugh she does when she’d rather not answer a question(such as when a debate moderator asked her if Perot was right about NAFTA).

12

True, on most things. But the big decisions she’s made have usually come down on our side and that was a genuine problem for her in 2008. The fact that it isn’t now is more a factor of the Democrats feeling they don’t have anywhere else to go.

13

“Usually”? Something like that would require a cite. She supports the ACA, raising the minimum wage, the Iran nuclear deal, etc.

14

Those things are, or are on their way to being, Republican orthodoxy.

15

If this is the case, “Your side” is the Democratic Party. Or the Republican Party of the 1970s. Not now. In 2008 her problem was her approval not for the Iraq War, but to give President GWBush the authority to launch the Iraq War. The argument was put forward as a way to bargain with Saddam Hussein. It was only in December when the arms inspectors said that they had Hussein in a box, but were forced to leave when GWBush made it clear that he had no intention of negotiating a peace.

16

Not much point in trying to explore facts with those who can be persuaded that the Iraq disaster was caused by Hillary Clinton.

17

She was, in part, responsible. It’s just that her part is miniscule and insignificant compared to the architects of the war, who were all Republican.

18

True, yet why use that vote against her in 2008, but not in 2016?

19

Why use her vote in favor of a Republican disaster at all?

20

I know! Obama was just so unfair, wasn’t he?