Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Are You All Watching Hillary on Keith?
For once, I'm speechless, so please comment if you're watching it too.
Advertisement
- TPMCafe Book Club
Weeklong book discussions with authors and experts who read them. - House Brew
The daily grind of housekeeping, announcements and editors' picks. - Special Guests
Quick shots from big names and big brains. - Special Features
Discussions on pressing issues and trends. - Table For One
An expert pulls up a chair to make their case for a week. - The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars discuss it all. - Warren Reports
Elizabeth Warren and her law students on bankruptcy, debt and the law. - All Reader Posts
TPM readers know all and say all.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.
Comments (51)
Nope, but I will be watching at 10pm it seems.
April 21, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iam watching The Daily Show and Colbert Report reruns, she is like Bush I cant stand listening to either one of them.
April 21, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alas, I cannot find a livestream. Maybe it'll be on YouTube later.
April 21, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, please pay attention to what she has to say about her "umbrella" nuke policy in detail.
Thanks.
April 21, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she was pretty good on that, actually. Deterrence of a possibility of Iranian nuclear attack, and an alliance with countries in the region so that they don't all rush to get the nukes for themselves.
April 21, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes all we need is another hawk ready to push the button on day one... She is friggen crazy........
April 21, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another attack with non-existent WMDs. These dangerous tools never learn.
April 21, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
she was on for 20 minutes and keith asked all of four questions or so. it seems hillary's strategy is to minimize opportunity for a damaging question by taking up all of the air time with her long, often repeated in different ways, answers.
but that won't work on keith.
April 21, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
and keith confirms it. he was limited to 15 minutes so the opportunity for follow ups were scarce...
April 21, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately while Keith asked good questions he didn't ask follow up questions. She giggled a lot. In other words, it was gross. He tried to pin her down. He needed to try harder.
April 21, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean you just don't like her, not what she was saying, right? Too bad he didn't have the balls to nail the bitch when talking to her face (unlike his regular programming).
April 21, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I missed those follow up questions both in reference to "politics of fear" and "cheering for McCain."
I had to stop paying attention, to keep my sanity, when she went on and on and on about the threat of Nuclear-Iran and protecting Israel and that, after Iran goes Nuclear, all the neighboring countries will be jealous and will want to be Nuclear Powers and it will be the end of the world...
April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me that you were more interested in wathching the bitch get nailed than to actually pay attention to a foreign policy detail.
April 21, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Lalo,
You're wrong again.
April 21, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Lalo,
Once you said that you wouldn't read my comments ever again. I understand that you couldn't help yourself, though.
Welcome back!
April 21, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I noticed how some things just don't change :-)
Switch to Larry King, she's repeating everything in case you are interested (although I doubt it)
April 21, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
in my case, you're right. I was hoping keith would nail her to the wall...
i wished he would have asked more ?s but hillary limited him to 15 minutes, but the questions he did ask were better than anything wolf blitzer or chris matthews would have asked.
April 21, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he asked very good questions too, like the good old Keith used to, a long time ago.
But I was really surprised at the difference in tone, he never talks about Clinton in the same voice when she's not on the show.
April 21, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he asked very good questions too, like the good old Keith used to, a long time ago.
But I was really surprised at the difference in tone, he never talks about Clinton in the same voice when she's not on the show.
April 21, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can I find transcripts that I can post here? I don't think enough people here were paying attention, but she just said some really skeery things about Iran and nukes.
I think it's important.
April 21, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC will have likely have video up on their website soon.
April 21, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I counted two cackles and four evasive actions.
April 21, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opus Hussein X, you are right...there were also 2 rather high-pitched giggles.
Keith just said that he didn't get to ask follow up questions because he had only 15 minutes. He knows he didn't conduct a good interview -- and I'm not even talking about nailing her, I'm just talking about a reasonable, journalism 101 kinda deal. She spent so much time answering that his time was cut to way too little. She did the same with Russert. It's clever, but ugly and not too democratic -- kind of like her.
If you missed it the whole thing should be available on the Countdown site at MSNBC.com
April 21, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean "nailing" her would be more than a reasonable 101 journalism, it would just be brilliant award-level journalism?
You are just another "progressive" who would prefer to have Clinton to say as little as possible (better nothing at all) and just be Keith's punching bag for 15 minutes.
April 21, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I found myself wondering why Keith let her ramble on and on. I'm guessing he was not interrupting out of some kind of respect for her psotion?
April 21, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
She reminds me of the student who memorizes everything before hand. When she was confronted with a surprise, she did the giggle thing and started talking until she came up with a good answer.
April 21, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Cackle/Giggle Nails on a Chalk Board will be on Larry King tonight and I am watching to see what other crazy things she comes up with. I'm going to vomit after, I just know it Hillary makes me sick.
April 21, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deterrence of a possibility of Iranian nuclear attack, and an alliance with countries in the region so that they don't all rush to get the nukes for themselves.
That's the ticket! Blow 'em up. That's the answer to all our problems.
April 21, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
1) Look up deterrence. USSR ring any bells?
2) What's your (or Obama's) alternative?
April 21, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diplomacy.
i.e., talking.
April 21, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diplomacy is what the government in Iran fears the most, they need tough talk like what Clinton said to stay in power.
April 21, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see Obama offer some kind of intelligence/security position to Scott Ritter. This guy has been giving up the straight dope on the weapons situation in Iraq/Iran since the nineties.
April 21, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you seriously believe that Iran, who is years away from the capacity for a nuclear weapon on the unlikely chance that they even have a program in place (according to the IAEA, who are in a far better position to know than are you...), is in any way the threat equivalent of the USSR at the peak of the Cold War?
Do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you say that? A country that does not have one nuclear weapon poses an existential threat to one that has hundreds?
Go ahead, make your case. It might be entertaining...
April 21, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
He asked questions I didn't think he would but kept it friendly. I really wanted him to play the video of Bill Clinton doing the fear versus hope speech and ask her about 3am and bin laden pics.
Her explanation of why her "threshold" remarks about McNazi aren't the same as Obama saying he'd be better than Bush were bullshit. She even said"it would be hard for McCain to be worse than Bush".
April 21, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Transcript over at Huffington
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/hillary-clinton-on-countd_n_97877.html
April 21, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24246849#24246849
Start at 5:40.
April 21, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't gotten to 5:40 yet, but at 4:40 she seemed to imply that giving a good speech could help move us to energy dependence. Not that I'm inclined to disagree with her, but remind me again, who's the better speech giver?
April 21, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by "energy dependence", of course I mean "energy independence".
April 21, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, there was a rather humorous remark at 12:35. I literally laughed out loud, and I'm not one who usually does that.
April 21, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And an awful lot of nervous laughter at 17:00, when Olbermann brings up Scaife.
April 21, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That said, I think she finessed a reasonably good answer to that question.
All in all, I thought she (and Olbermann) did quite well. Sure, I also disagree with her nuclear umbrella, but overall, I thought she did well, and I agree completely with her that the ability to give a good speech is an important quality that we should be looking for in a presidential candidate.
April 21, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always wonder what kind of arrangements are made before these interviews. Hillary is a master of "keep talking and say nothing". Keith was too polite to cut her off and move to the next question. I wonder if he'll comment about it on his Daily Kos blog.
April 21, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just saw it online, and I thought both HRC and KO kept it very professional.
It is interesting that since the debate, HRC is using stronger language towards Iran - as Ben Smith puts it, almost daring Obama to criticize her. Personally I don't think that there is anything new or alarming in substance - just a clear re-enforcement of her policy towards Iran.
I thought it was good for her to do this spot for Olbermann. Shows that she has a lot of confidence and is willing to talk to her detractors.
April 21, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Opus, he didn't let her ramble on, she was filibustering on each question & he is a gentleman.
Her talk of nuking Iran was sureal.
April 21, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was surreal. Maybe because I didn't realize just how hawkish she is -- and believe me, I knew she was hawkish. But the way she brings up the Cold War and our old policies makes me shudder. And not in a good way.
April 21, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surreal is right - Jesu Cristo - she's a fracking Neo-Con!
April 21, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing neo-con about a theory of nuclear deterrence.
"The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side will launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with secondary forces (second strike) resulting in the destruction of both parties. The payoff of this doctrine is expected to be a tense but stable peace."
It is a theory that tries to keep the peace. Not to start a war.
April 21, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone get her off him!
April 21, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL....and I thought no one would notice my headline.
April 21, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, do I remember Obama saying that he would bomb Iran if they went nuclear? That just sounds tough and conventional. Hillary's ideas are more creative and daring.
April 21, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't remember that, but I obviously don't know everything he's ever said. I believe Israel said they would drop a bomb on any location in Iran that appeared to be creating nuclear weapons, or something along those lines.
April 21, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment