Clinton Press Conference Counter

Fudbucker said:
Feel free to change "public official" to "ex-Secretary of State/ex-Senator/ex-First lady running for President". It doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...
Be honest. "public official", "ex-Secretary of State/ex-Senator/ex-First lady running for President" or wherever you move the goalposts, we all know who the real target is. It's Hillary, and only Hillary. Because... Hillary!

It's not like her lack of press conferences is only a Right-Wing talking point.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...a_press_conference_in_five_or_six_months.html
Click to expand...
I'd never heard about this particular 'controversy' until now. So who invented it?
 
Tricky said:
That damn Clinton is so opaque that she refuses to release her tax returns. Or was that some different candidate? Hmm...
Click to expand...

Isn't she the one who keeps banning newspapers from her conferences and threatens to sue anyone who writes something nasty about her? But as you say that might have been someone else?
 
Good morning Garrison.
Garrison said:
Isn't she the one who keeps banning newspapers from her conferences and threatens to sue anyone who writes something nasty about her? But as you say that might have been someone else?
Click to expand...
No their the one who opens up fraudulent Universities and Institutions to scam people out of their money. Similar to their countless business ventures gone bad. Getting people to work for them and then refusing to pay them for that work and then declaring bankruptcy(corporate welfare) over and over, so they don't have to pay their debts. Just like their plan for dealing with the deficit. Wait...I might be thinking of someone else.
 
Fudbucker,

Have you come to the conclusion yet that your metric might be a wee bit flawed ???
 
Based on what I've seen over the past decade, I'd rather see her sit down with Marc Maron than the press corps. Face it, she's not going to say anything interesting about any investigation, and much of what the press would ask her would be about issues that any rational person would consider long resolved anyway.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Fudbucker,

Have you come to the conclusion yet that your metric might be a wee bit flawed ???
Click to expand...

When she releases the transcripts of the Goldman Sachs speeches, I'll walk it back. Availability to the press is a minor issue, but the Wall Street speeches are a major one for me, almost a deal-breaker. I've gone into my reasons too many times here to rehash why.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
When she releases the transcripts of the Goldman Sachs speeches, I'll walk it back. Availability to the press is a minor issue, but the Wall Street speeches are a major one for me, almost a deal-breaker. I've gone into my reasons too many times here to rehash why.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps you might have listed that in the OP, then.

I can't fathom how those speeches could possibly hold THAT MUCH import, but ... o.k. - I understand not wanting to rehash it.

Consider the possibility she's simply holding out for an Obama birth certificate moment with them, though.
 
Darat said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Did you really need a civics lesson?

"Since Woodrow Wilson held the first presidential press conference in March 1913, all sixteen of his successors have used the sessions as a basic part of their publicity strategies. The sessions have survived because reporters found them useful for developing information, citizens saw them as valuable for making judgments about their chief executives, and presidents and their staffs saw them as a primary strategy for explaining their policies. Presidents could give speeches laying out their policies, but press conferences became a major way to explain the intricacies of those policies as the proposals made their way through the legislative process.

In a representative government, citizens expect to see their leaders respond to questions from others. Reporters act as surrogates for the public. President Coolidge discussed with reporters why he held press conferences:

"I regard it as rather necessary to the carrying on of our republican institution that the people should have a fairly accurate report of what the president is trying to do, and it is for that purpose, of course, that those intimate conferences are held." [September 14 1926]

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/presidential-press-conferences
 
Fudbucker said:
Did you really need a civics lesson?

"Since Woodrow Wilson held the first presidential press conference in March 1913, all sixteen of his successors have used the sessions as a basic part of their publicity strategies. The sessions have survived because reporters found them useful for developing information, citizens saw them as valuable for making judgments about their chief executives, and presidents and their staffs saw them as a primary strategy for explaining their policies. Presidents could give speeches laying out their policies, but press conferences became a major way to explain the intricacies of those policies as the proposals made their way through the legislative process.

In a representative government, citizens expect to see their leaders respond to questions from others. Reporters act as surrogates for the public. President Coolidge discussed with reporters why he held press conferences:

"I regard it as rather necessary to the carrying on of our republican institution that the people should have a fairly accurate report of what the president is trying to do, and it is for that purpose, of course, that those intimate conferences are held." [September 14 1926]

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/presidential-press-conferences
Click to expand...

Except she isn't President, nor part of the representative government, she isn't even a public official at the present point in time. Why should she need to be doing press conferences when she's still for the moment a private citizen? How many other ex-Secretaries of State do you see doing regular Press Conferences?

If she is voted in and hasn't had one this time next year, then you might have a point.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Except she isn't President, nor part of the representative government, she isn't even a public official at the present point in time. Why should she need to be doing press conferences when she's still for the moment a private citizen? How many other ex-Secretaries of State do you see doing regular Press Conferences?

If she is voted in and hasn't had one this time next year, then you might have a point.
Click to expand...

Neither is she Jane Doe, who can tell a reporter to **** off without any consequences. She is running for President, is expected to act presidential, and one of the things Presidents do is hold press conferences.
 
Fudbucker said:
Did you really need a civics lesson?

"Since Woodrow Wilson held the first presidential press conference in March 1913, all sixteen of his successors have used the sessions as a basic part of their publicity strategies. The sessions have survived because reporters found them useful for developing information, citizens saw them as valuable for making judgments about their chief executives, and presidents and their staffs saw them as a primary strategy for explaining their policies. Presidents could give speeches laying out their policies, but press conferences became a major way to explain the intricacies of those policies as the proposals made their way through the legislative process.

In a representative government, citizens expect to see their leaders respond to questions from others. Reporters act as surrogates for the public. President Coolidge discussed with reporters why he held press conferences:

"I regard it as rather necessary to the carrying on of our republican institution that the people should have a fairly accurate report of what the president is trying to do, and it is for that purpose, of course, that those intimate conferences are held." [September 14 1926]

https://www.whitehousehistory.org/presidential-press-conferences
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with Clinton and press conferences?
 
Darat, can you find an example from the age of television to the present of the nominee of a party not holding a single press conference?
 
Fudbucker said:
Darat, can you find an example from the age of television to the present of the nominee of a party not holding a single press conference?
Click to expand...

I can't recall caring. I honestly do not recall if McCain held actual "press conferences" as a candidate. If he did, I don't recall anything asked or answered. Nor Romney. Nor Kerry. Nor Gore.

I can recall each of those having called press conferences during their incumbency in various positions, and that's what I expect of elected officials.

Be honest, it's just a talking point. What questions do you wish to hear asked and responded to that haven't been raised on the news show circuit - which she covers every week, or hasn't been covered by the Post or Times or Fox or The Atlantic?
 
Fudbucker said:
Neither is she Jane Doe, who can tell a reporter to **** off without any consequences. She is running for President, is expected to act presidential, and one of the things Presidents do is hold press conferences.
Click to expand...

Running for President isn't being President. There is no requirement for a candidate to hold press conferences.

Fudbucker said:
Darat, can you find an example from the age of television to the present of the nominee of a party not holding a single press conference?
Click to expand...

As the Bernie Bro's keep delighting in telling us, shes not the nominee yet.
 
Fudbucker said:
Neither is she Jane Doe, who can tell a reporter to **** off without any consequences. She is running for President, is expected to act presidential, and one of the things Presidents do is hold press conferences.
Click to expand...

I do not know why you are so hung-up on this press conference business.

After all, a really good politician can talk to reporters all day at several times throughout the year and still not say anything of import.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom