Kamala Harris & Tim Walz are “sitting down” tomorrow for an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash. They are smart to mix it up by doing it together. Maybe we’ll get an actual conversation. We’ll see.
I'm concerned about Harris not taking questions. She should take them every day, like Trump. We like to make fun of Trump, but that's how he won in '16.
Trump “took” questions, but rarely answered them truthfully. Actually, I wouldn’t even describe it as “taking questions.” He just enjoyed any opportunity to be the center of attention, even if he didn’t know what he was talking about. As to why he won, I have a different take on that, but too much to go into here.
Susan, you are preaching to the converted with me. The NYT definitely turned the Hillary email fracas into The Story, and ever since, the paper of record (or current news organization monopoly) has tumbled in my estimation. Lately, I’ve been thinking about why so many commentators think “joy” is not enough - now Kamala has to get “serious” - it would be laughable, if the stakes weren’t so high.
That said, Kamala should be talking every day to the public, and not just asking for money. She could be on all sorts of podcasts, video channels, and social media rather than traditional press interviews. She and her staff should keep putting out Instagram stories and the like. Frankly, I think she should manage her persona and narrative like female celebrities do, because the traditional press approach is broken for woman politicians.
Actually, the NYT didn’t just turn it into The Story. They—that is, Michael Schmidt—CREATED the story. And despite the errors in his piece, never retracted or corrected in a way that worked to turn things around. And then he got a Pulitzer, as I recall. GRRR. Can’t stand him and don’t know how Nicole Wallace can. (IMO, she hasn’t been looking very happy lately. I imagine it’s since she married him, but that’s just my fantasy.)
I agree with you that the traditional press is broken, but unfortunately they still create headlines that fill voters’ head with bullshit.
Indeed, indeed - filling readers’ heads with bullshit - not part of any traditional mission for journalism I know of, but it’s become the digital version of “if it bleeds, it leads” - and if we can fake the bleeding with a few keystrokes, even better (or so that clickbait reasoning goes).
Great post Susan, thank you. 2016 was such a rough year for us in the UK, and the same populism that delivered Brexit propelled Trump. I subscribe to the NYT (only from 2020 or so, so wasn’t aware it was the origin of the server scandal), so following this election closely and hoping that Trump does not prevail this time. Reading Hillary’s press conference is enlightening, so much precise detail that Trump could never do.
Thanks for another good post. I have a question for you. Do you think Bill Clinton helped or hurt Hilary in 2016? My last post was in part about my discomfort with the Democratic party's continued embrace of Bill Clinton.
I voted for Hilary but to my regret did not do anything else for her and I wonder if that was partly due to my contempt for Bill's personal behavior while in office.
Personally, I like Bill and always have. But I do think he hurt her in 2016, partly because of his own interference, but mostly because Trump was able to exploit Bill’s past. In fact, both Trump and Sanders, as well as the media, tended to merge them together. That said, I think there were far more destructive factors at work than Bill.
All of the history here is helpful, but I would add that by the time Hillary became the nominee, the media were accustomed to and suspicious of her penchant for secrecy about both private and public matters. Two examples: first, the Whitewater papers that disappeared and then mysteriously reappeared on a table in the White House. While it is likely that the secrecy about Whitewater was due to embarrassment about a bad investment, many wondered was there something worse.
Second, the extreme secrecy during development of the Clinton health reform proposal, unlike any previous White House policy development on any issue. Hillary was in charge of the process. National organizations and experts who were invited to meet and discuss possible initiatives told the press they were forbidden to share with others both what they heard in meetings and even what their own recommendations had been. Neither Clinton had Washington experience as legislators, legislative aides, or lobbyists, so they may not have understood the essential participation of coalition partners. But the health plan ended in frustration and failure. Fortunately, in 1997 Senators Kennedy and Hatch shepherded through Congress a scaled back proposal to cover children in state run insurance programs which became law as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
The Affordable Care Act was developed without extreme secrecy, with early buy in by necessary coalition partners and cooperation with the Hill and had a very successful outcome.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I don’t agree with all your accounts of Clinton’s behavior when she was First Lady. But that aside, by the time she was NY Senator all that was forgotten. She was hugely popular as a senator, and as a Secretary of State as well. It was only when she declared that she was running for POTUS that any old stuff was revived—and then some. (Of course the right-wing hated both Clintons from the very beginning—I’m talking Arkansas— and constantly circulated negative press about them. But that’s a whole other story! And a fascinating one. Are you familiar with “Blinded by the Right”? So interesting!!)
Yes, re blinded. But just because the right wing hates you doesn’t make you innocent of all criticism. I was lobbying on health and welfare issues when the Clintons were in the White House and she was in the Senate, so I had a front row seat. The criticism of how she handled the health reform plan came from Clinton allies. The right was happy to watch her flounder. It wasn’t just the secrecy; she also rejected the advice of Members of Congress like Senator Moynihan and other experts in health legislation.
But In the Senate she had excellent legislative staff and listened to them and nothing to be secretive about. I don’t know much about her time as Secretary of State, but it was dumb to use a private server for public business. Of course, White House staff in Republican administrations used personal email accounts for public business and got minimal criticism. Of course, they were guys, so who cared?
You’re right, of course, that she’s made mistakes, especially trying to do health reform as First Lady. Inexperience at that level of operation and perhaps unwarranted confidence. But she’s always been a good learner, and her time as Senator really turned colleagues appreciation of her around. As for the email thing, if you haven’t yet, I’d love for you to read my piece on it (it’s from my book on the election.)
I’m sure the interviewees will be fine. It’s the interviewers and spin makers that I distrust.
A pet peeve of mine is cringy word choices like coronated, crowned, and dethroning used to refer to the presidency makes me want to grab those abused thesaurus’s away from the drama queens that write legacy media headlines. Not every word listed is interchangeable. We do not live in a monarchy. These terms may give that irresponsible impression, even when used to distract from a lack of originality and depth.
Agree that Kamala and Timothy are smart to do the interview together. Both know they are incapable of handling such an interview solo, even with an accommodating interviewer like Dana Bash.
Oh come on, I agreed with you! Mostly. As for Kamala and Timothy, not much of a fan though I did like the DNC providing a platform for Rachel Goldberg and her husband to discuss the plight of their son Hersh and other hostages at the recent DNC Convention.
I'm concerned about Harris not taking questions. She should take them every day, like Trump. We like to make fun of Trump, but that's how he won in '16.
Trump “took” questions, but rarely answered them truthfully. Actually, I wouldn’t even describe it as “taking questions.” He just enjoyed any opportunity to be the center of attention, even if he didn’t know what he was talking about. As to why he won, I have a different take on that, but too much to go into here.
He never answers truthfully : ) Don't let him get away with it, Kamala!
It’s not just her job. The press is supposed to do their part too.
yep
Susan, you are preaching to the converted with me. The NYT definitely turned the Hillary email fracas into The Story, and ever since, the paper of record (or current news organization monopoly) has tumbled in my estimation. Lately, I’ve been thinking about why so many commentators think “joy” is not enough - now Kamala has to get “serious” - it would be laughable, if the stakes weren’t so high.
That said, Kamala should be talking every day to the public, and not just asking for money. She could be on all sorts of podcasts, video channels, and social media rather than traditional press interviews. She and her staff should keep putting out Instagram stories and the like. Frankly, I think she should manage her persona and narrative like female celebrities do, because the traditional press approach is broken for woman politicians.
Actually, the NYT didn’t just turn it into The Story. They—that is, Michael Schmidt—CREATED the story. And despite the errors in his piece, never retracted or corrected in a way that worked to turn things around. And then he got a Pulitzer, as I recall. GRRR. Can’t stand him and don’t know how Nicole Wallace can. (IMO, she hasn’t been looking very happy lately. I imagine it’s since she married him, but that’s just my fantasy.)
I agree with you that the traditional press is broken, but unfortunately they still create headlines that fill voters’ head with bullshit.
Indeed, indeed - filling readers’ heads with bullshit - not part of any traditional mission for journalism I know of, but it’s become the digital version of “if it bleeds, it leads” - and if we can fake the bleeding with a few keystrokes, even better (or so that clickbait reasoning goes).
Great post Susan, thank you. 2016 was such a rough year for us in the UK, and the same populism that delivered Brexit propelled Trump. I subscribe to the NYT (only from 2020 or so, so wasn’t aware it was the origin of the server scandal), so following this election closely and hoping that Trump does not prevail this time. Reading Hillary’s press conference is enlightening, so much precise detail that Trump could never do.
Susan,
Thanks for another good post. I have a question for you. Do you think Bill Clinton helped or hurt Hilary in 2016? My last post was in part about my discomfort with the Democratic party's continued embrace of Bill Clinton.
I voted for Hilary but to my regret did not do anything else for her and I wonder if that was partly due to my contempt for Bill's personal behavior while in office.
Personally, I like Bill and always have. But I do think he hurt her in 2016, partly because of his own interference, but mostly because Trump was able to exploit Bill’s past. In fact, both Trump and Sanders, as well as the media, tended to merge them together. That said, I think there were far more destructive factors at work than Bill.
All of the history here is helpful, but I would add that by the time Hillary became the nominee, the media were accustomed to and suspicious of her penchant for secrecy about both private and public matters. Two examples: first, the Whitewater papers that disappeared and then mysteriously reappeared on a table in the White House. While it is likely that the secrecy about Whitewater was due to embarrassment about a bad investment, many wondered was there something worse.
Second, the extreme secrecy during development of the Clinton health reform proposal, unlike any previous White House policy development on any issue. Hillary was in charge of the process. National organizations and experts who were invited to meet and discuss possible initiatives told the press they were forbidden to share with others both what they heard in meetings and even what their own recommendations had been. Neither Clinton had Washington experience as legislators, legislative aides, or lobbyists, so they may not have understood the essential participation of coalition partners. But the health plan ended in frustration and failure. Fortunately, in 1997 Senators Kennedy and Hatch shepherded through Congress a scaled back proposal to cover children in state run insurance programs which became law as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
The Affordable Care Act was developed without extreme secrecy, with early buy in by necessary coalition partners and cooperation with the Hill and had a very successful outcome.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I don’t agree with all your accounts of Clinton’s behavior when she was First Lady. But that aside, by the time she was NY Senator all that was forgotten. She was hugely popular as a senator, and as a Secretary of State as well. It was only when she declared that she was running for POTUS that any old stuff was revived—and then some. (Of course the right-wing hated both Clintons from the very beginning—I’m talking Arkansas— and constantly circulated negative press about them. But that’s a whole other story! And a fascinating one. Are you familiar with “Blinded by the Right”? So interesting!!)
Yes, re blinded. But just because the right wing hates you doesn’t make you innocent of all criticism. I was lobbying on health and welfare issues when the Clintons were in the White House and she was in the Senate, so I had a front row seat. The criticism of how she handled the health reform plan came from Clinton allies. The right was happy to watch her flounder. It wasn’t just the secrecy; she also rejected the advice of Members of Congress like Senator Moynihan and other experts in health legislation.
But In the Senate she had excellent legislative staff and listened to them and nothing to be secretive about. I don’t know much about her time as Secretary of State, but it was dumb to use a private server for public business. Of course, White House staff in Republican administrations used personal email accounts for public business and got minimal criticism. Of course, they were guys, so who cared?
You’re right, of course, that she’s made mistakes, especially trying to do health reform as First Lady. Inexperience at that level of operation and perhaps unwarranted confidence. But she’s always been a good learner, and her time as Senator really turned colleagues appreciation of her around. As for the email thing, if you haven’t yet, I’d love for you to read my piece on it (it’s from my book on the election.)
Will do.
I’m sure the interviewees will be fine. It’s the interviewers and spin makers that I distrust.
A pet peeve of mine is cringy word choices like coronated, crowned, and dethroning used to refer to the presidency makes me want to grab those abused thesaurus’s away from the drama queens that write legacy media headlines. Not every word listed is interchangeable. We do not live in a monarchy. These terms may give that irresponsible impression, even when used to distract from a lack of originality and depth.
Why am I blocked from liking this comment?
Agree that Kamala and Timothy are smart to do the interview together. Both know they are incapable of handling such an interview solo, even with an accommodating interviewer like Dana Bash.
Ouch. You’re not much of a fan, huh?
Oh come on, I agreed with you! Mostly. As for Kamala and Timothy, not much of a fan though I did like the DNC providing a platform for Rachel Goldberg and her husband to discuss the plight of their son Hersh and other hostages at the recent DNC Convention.
They did a great job. I downloaded a transcript and it was even better than I remembered.