All is revealed as TV pundit "Chris Matthews" interviews Democratic presidential candidate "Hillary Clinton." A "more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode" of Hillaristic deconstruction I've yet to see.
But if the SNL hit hurt, well, Hil's already going right at Obama with a damning ad, as Letterman reports.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 23, 2007 05:58 PM | Email ThisI'd hate to be in her security detail!
Posted by: GS on January 23, 2007 08:08 PMNotice that Clinton does not do press conferences nor take questions. Her latest scam is to have fake media ask her softball questions on her webcast and listen to her filibuster. Hugh Hewitt chuckled as he was playing the responses and called it a filibuster because she couldn't talk and answer the question directly.
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2007 06:59 AMhmmm, i seem to remember that george "the decider" bush (while a sitting president) only let a select few into his "meetings" and only took questions along the likes of "how does your daily prayer help you?"
please. at least she isn't pulling these stunts while botching a war.
further, it's almost comical that you cite hewitt. he's such a discredited wingnut.
Posted by: dinesh on January 24, 2007 12:08 PMI'm not one of them, of course!!!
Posted by: Libertarian on January 24, 2007 12:13 PMso i think it's hilarious that some would have the audacity to question this tactic when practice by others at this stage of the game.
look, the last 6 years of republican rule really screwed a lot of republican supporters b/c they have lost a good deal of credibility.
watching the president call for a balanced budget yesterday was like watching dom delouise ask for a diet soda. a little too little and a lot too late.
so republicans have lost a lot of credibility on the following fronts:
fiscal restraint;
accountability; and
national security, just to name a few.
Have you given the PIAPS a free ride to the presidency? I thought you were a free thinker (hence the new koolaid reference for you) but I was wrong.
Is she or isn't running for president? Does she have the patience to be president? Does she have the stuff to take criticism without a screamfest (poor Bill on that one)? Does she have a grasp of the issues or just have a grasp of the issues? Is she like Gregoire who is against the tunnel without a vote but now may be for it?
dinesh, please be a little more two-sided or I won't feed you anymore.
Posted by: swatter on January 24, 2007 03:27 PMfor better, but i think worse, bush put these phony conferences into place beginning with his election. prior to that, as i recall, we had the 'town hall' style meetings, a perversion of the oprah-style meeting, which itself was taken to a new level when libby dole walked into the audience to tell us why her husband should be president.
i am skeptical of hillary's ability to win. that said, i must say that her 'machine' seems awesome--she's a money raising juggernaut, and she's seemingly put together a quality team. fundamentally, however, she seems to have 'personality' (or lack thereof) issues. she lacks that 'i want to have a beer with her' quality.
that said, i would want to have a beer with bush, jr. (even though he doesn't drink anymore), but i don't think that quality, so valued in 2000 and again in 2004, translates into being a good president.
as has been said before--maybe this time around we forsake personality and take intelligence and qualifications instead.
i hope that my choices are better than clinton v. mccain. this country has had enough of bush/clinton and with mccain pushing 123 yrs old and waffling more than eggo, i don't trust him either.
Posted by: dinesh on January 24, 2007 03:53 PMClinton left us defenseless after the first terrorist attack. Now H. Clinton is blowing with the wind and willing to compromise our Defenses just to win a few percentage points. This time, although I feel the economy will be doing nicely by 2008, there are just too many real problems for a petty person such as H. Clinton to be allowed into office.
Posted by: John Bailo on January 24, 2007 05:43 PMObama is currently honeymooning--like Kerry before Swift Boat. If by some chance Obama wins the Dem nod (e.g., Willie drives a car off a bridge, drowning her), it's going to be like watching sharks feed.
Speaking of SNL spoofs, when I listened to Kerry's formal announcement today that he wasn't running in 2008, I could have swore I was watching a clip from SNL. Only Kerry would have the chutzpah to make such a ridiculously egotistical announcement. What an idiot.
Posted by: Organization Man on January 24, 2007 06:13 PMnow we have the iraq war.....and in 2008, that broken situation will determine who is elected president above all others.
republicans in congress recognize this, hence hagel and others' newfound vocal criticism of their former supreme leader, bush, jr.
i look forward to the coverage of all the serious candidates and how they will address the fubar situation that is iraq. hopefully, the situation will improve so dramatically that bush will leave office with his head high, the country's position in iraq more clear, and less pressure on the candidates' to devote a disproportionate amount of attention on iraq to the exclusion of the larger issue of global terrorism. hillary's a player (as are many others) in these debates, and while i recognize that there is a solid faction of people who won't give her a hearing, others will and it would be wise not to underestimate her.
if politics is money, hillary is going to be the richest politician in the race.
but many republicans will have a hard time explaining their exterme and non-vocal deference to bush and their party for the past 6 years. the republican majority squandered their opportunity (except for all that money they gave to their supporters/constituents). the price they pay may be greater than the single 2006 election cycle. 20 republican senators are up in 2008, compared to 12 dems. those are some tough numbers.
finally, will the republican nominee campaign with bush? he's likely to disappear to the ranch and clear a lot of brush.
republicans have a serious credibility problem. they no longer are the party of fiscal responsibility, accountability and national security. the facts simply no longer support any such assertion.
Posted by: dinesh on January 24, 2007 06:38 PMIt seems you agree with me that our current political system does not elect the best people available. From Bill Clinton's fake town hall meetings (who ever said Bush and Dole can't learn) to today's fake interviews and webcasts, do we really get a good idea of who we are electing?
In 2000, I was supporting Bob Kerrey from the D side and John Kasich from the R side, neither which had the money go after the prize.
Posted by: swatter on January 25, 2007 08:07 AMscariest book is Buzz Patterson's; he carried the "football;" and Bill--did you ever see a former Prez that just clould not stay out of the spotlight for even a minute? talk about ego; to me, it borders on political interference;
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 28, 2007 08:42 AM