Posted on 09/25/2016 3:24:43 PM PDT by Kaslin
The Sunday before the first presidential debate of 2016 was filled with analysis and speculation about how the candidates were going to perform. It was the same on CNN’s Inside Politics were their panel touted Hillary Clinton’s ability to debate. Host John King played a clip of Clinton leaving Senator Bernie Sanders speechless after slamming his questions about her speaking fees as a smear, saying it was a clue about how Monday’s debate might turn out.
CNN’s Nia-Malika Henderson seemed almost in awe of Clinton’s counter of Sanders, noting his lack of a response wasn’t good for him. “One of the things Hillary Clinton does well in these debates, she often knows the record of the other person better than they know their own record,” she stated, praising Clinton, “And, she's able to bring something out in these debates in a tack that we haven't heard before.”
Henderson seemed to almost coach Clinton on how to answer questions about her e-mails. “I think on the e-mail thing, she's going to have to answer the question like it's the first time she's hearing it,” she noted. She went on to explain that a highly rehearsed answer to those questions could hurt her campaign, just like Michael Dukakis was hurt by a practiced answer to a question about his position on the death penalty.
CNN Panel: Clinton Knows Her Opponent Better than They Know Themselves
Expounding on Henderson’s point about the Clinton’s answers to e-mail questions, New York Times National Correspondent Jonathan Martin seemed almost shocked by how much people don’t trust Clinton. “The mistrust of her is remarkable, and we see it in the polling,” he pointed out, sounding dismayed, “But after you talk to voters it's just incredible the degree to which people believe she's dishonest.”
Molly Ball, Politics Writer for The Atlantic, concluded that Clinton had two paths she could travel during the debate:
I mean, this is a really interesting choice for her. Of, does she want to radically remake her image, be warm and fuzzy, convince America for the first time ever that she is this wonderfully likeable person, or does she double down on her strengths while acknowledging that that's a weakness.
Ball finally settled on the latter, noting, “And I think that's a much more effective route for her. You know, on the e-mails she gets lost in the weeds and gets defensive and that's a real trap for her.”
Transcript below:
CNN
Inside Politics
September 25, 2016
8:44:40 AM Eastern
…
JOHN KING: And if he challenges her credibility we know she will go after his transparency. Where are your taxes, Mr. Trump? What are your ties to Russian businesses, Mr. Trump? Who do you owe bank money to, Mr. Trump? She’s trying to get at that.
JONATHAN MARTIN: Muddy the waters.
KING: Muddy the waters. And try to make him more risky than her. And here is something she did. Again, we look at these past debated to get clues about what might happen on the stage. Check this out.
[Clip from a Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders debate]
HILLARY CLINTON: If you've got something to say, say it directly. But you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received. So I think it's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign…
BERNIE SANDERS: Oh, come on.
CLINTON: …have been carrying out in recent weeks and let's talk -- let's talk about the issues.
[Cuts back to live]
NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON: Bernie Sanders, no response there. Not so good. One of the things Hillary Clinton does well in these debates, she often knows the record of the other person better than they know their own record. And, she's able to bring something out in these debates in a tack that we haven't heard before. And that will be interesting to see what she's able to do with Donald Trump. I think on the e-mail thing, she's going to have to answer the question like it's the first time she's hearing it. You played the Dukakis thing about him answering about Kitty Dukakis and he later said that the reason he answered it that way was because he heard the question a thousand times, and he was very cavalier about it. So, I think that's going to be her challenge with the e-mails.
MARTIN: The mistrust of her is remarkable, and we see it in the polling. But after you talk to voters it's just incredible the degree to which people believe she's dishonest. And to that end I think Jeff is right. You can't litigate the nature of e-mails. You have to show contrition. And say I understand why folks have concerns about me and then move on and make it about him.
KING: You do get a new look in these debates though. A very prominent democratic strategist who is close to the Clintons, he was joking but not really when I asked, “What’s her what's her biggest priority in this debate?” And he said, “I'll take likeable enough.” That was a line Obama used— That was a line Obama used against Clinton. You get the idea— You do get a fresh look, I don’t know how much of a brand new look. But a fresh look when you're on the debate stage because you're at that key moment. Can she rise to that, I guess is the challenge.
MOLLY BALL: I mean, this is a really interesting choice for her. Of, does she want to radically remake her image, be warm and fuzzy, convince America for the first time ever that she is this wonderfully likeable person, or does she double down on her strengths while acknowledging that that's a weakness. I think that's something she did well in the primaries. Were she said, “Look, I get it, I’m not little Ms. Charismatic, but here's what I am good at. Here is where I am on the substance of things.”
And I think that's a much more effective route for her. You know, on the e-mails she gets lost in the weeds and gets defensive and that's a real trap for her.
…
Fair enough, are they all ugly and scary too?
Sorry, that's an easy one to counter. Her own staff has been quoted expediting access to foundation donors.
Half of her meetings with people outside the US government were with foundation donors.
And, there has been plenty of material recently, itemizing people getting favored jobs in the Dept. of State and how much they donated to the DNC.
Bernie may not have had a good retort, but Trump will be ready -- because a lot of stuff has seen the light of day since then.
Is it just me or does this debate remind you of “The Devil Went Down to Georgia”.
Must be those FBI files.
Hillary Rotten Clinton's lies, Foundation, Benghazi and so on is very much important.
The second Sanders said that, he lost the nomination, and that’s why Hillary let out a Roar of laughing approval.
If she gives Trump any lip about it he could just ask her why she had her phones smashed with a hammer when they were under subpoena, why she had her e-mails deleted with Bit Bleach when they too were under subpoena.
. Where are your taxes, Mr. Trump?
The IRS has them, Mrs Clinton, and if there were any thing in them that would help YOU the IRS would have leaked it to you in the fashion of thugs.
CANTSTUMPTHETRUMP
Nice.
#33 - What should be scary for Clinton is how easily that mental image forms.
She will be trained to counter attacks. Trump will be nice and on point and will drive her to attack awkwardly, then he counter strikes in spades.
“Clinton Knows Her Opponent Better than They Know Themselves”
Consistent use of tense and singular/plural nominatives are excellent signs of competence in the English language. FAIL.
CNN is living in an alternate universe: Sanders/Clinton wasn’t a debate: Sanders refused to attack Hillary, and in fact, joined her in declaring her email scandal was much ado about nothing. Those “debates” were totally rigged and Sanders was a strawman opponent without a killer instinct.
The results will be remarkably different against Trump.
I still can’t figure out why the enemedia is building such high expectations for Hillary when all indications are that she’s no match for Trump.
Heck, people are going to gasp right from the getgo when the see the height difference between 6-4 Trump and 5-4 Hillary, not to mention when they see how overweight Hillary is.
Hillary has no idea who she is. She has no self-awareness. She can’t possibly understand who Trump is
Plus how about the information on your foundation financials, Mrs Clinton!
Haven’t you heard about La-a?
When asked about it, she said, “it’s pronounced Ladasha, because the dash don’t be silent!”
Thanks for the explanation. Thank God I do not own or watch TV. I would go insane in no time.
"No, Hillary, criticizing your criminal mishandling of Top Secret material is not a smear - your reckless misconduct with information that could have and perhaps did cause exceptionally grave damage to our security directly demonstrates your unfitness for office. If I wanted to smear you, I'd talk about the rapists you defended with sleazy tactics, including your husband for decades and a pedophile at the start of your brief but shady law career. Or I'd talk about the rape victims you attacked and smeared, including several women your husband raped and of course the 12 y/o girl you started your career by destroying."
I agree with that, She will ask for whatever it was that Michael Jackson got just to get elected. She doesn’t care about the health consequences.
Trump has to dramatize the meaning of “the e-mail thing.” What does it mean to expose classified information? What is classified information?At the cabinet level, information which might get a spy killed is classified. Information about what the US negotiating strategy is, and what minimum objectives we will accept, is classified.
Trusting someone to be president is trusting them to name a Secretary of State who will be diligent in protecting classified information. And a Secretary of Defense, ditto. And many other cabinet level, and lesser, appointments in whom the people have a right to confidently place their trust. What sense would it make to select as president someone who was clearly above their level of incompetence as Secretary of State???
Part of “the email thing” is the revelation that only half the people (outside of the State Department) who were able to talk to Hillary hadn’t donated to the Clinton Foundation. The Constitution indicates that for any federal official - let alone the Secretary of State - to have personal dealings with foreign governments is suspicious and requires congressional oversight:
It is claimed that Hillary was disinterested in the finances of the Clinton Foundation. But as Dale Carnegie famously put it, “a man’s name is the sweetest and most important sound in . . . any . . . language.”
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
Any claim that the Clinton Foundation does good is an edification of Hillary Clinton’s name. Hillary cannot be trusted with your credit card number - let alone all the information the POTUS could easily obtain about you. And the Clinton Foundation is no more transparent than you would expect from a Clinton organization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
