Everybody's A Media Guru

Maybe Hillary really does know it all but this seems presumptuous to me:

Hillary Clinton Tells Katie Couric Time To "Draw Contrasts" With Her Rivals

Will drawing contrasts really fix whatever is wrong with the Couric experiment?  Maybe Brian Williams and whoever that other guy is are just better newsman.

Oh, wait, I've found my reading glasses...

GIRL TALK:  Isn't it great that Hillary sits down with another embattled chick to talk about how she is going to drop the gloves?  C'mon, sit down with a guy and tell him you are going to 'man up' - this girl power thing undercuts the message.

Comments

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

...We're going to have a mad dash to Iowa caucuses, turn around and have a mad dash to New Hampshire and then keep going....

Like Howard Dean?

[Jane]

Like Howard Dean?

Ewwwwwwwwwww I like the sting of that!

[Other Tom]

What killed Dean was the fact that nobody really knew much about him until he showed up as a deranged nutball, and it was all over for him before it really began. With Hillary, everybody already knows all there is to know, and in the general election she'll either get 49% or 51% of the two-party vote.

[clarice]

I believe it was Fox which caught the Dean Scream and the Kerry for it before he was against it. The others were there but didn't consider those remarks "newsworthy"

[MayBee]

I don't know, clarice. I remember watching the Dean Scream live and I would have only had access to CNN (international) at the time.
I don't know that they considered it newsworthy or if they were just carrying each candidate's speech to his supporters.
It was so uncomfortable to watch. You may well be right that only FOX had the thought to replay it to a wider audience, knowing they had really captured something.

[LindaK]

Could it be a good omen for Hillary, who's feeling the heat from Obama, to sit down with the struggling anchor of the third-rated network news show? Could it portend a third place showing in Iowa? One can only hope.

[maryrose]

I still laugh every time they replay "The Scream".

[maryrose]

Katie Couric is playing softball with Hillary. Not an important interview at all.

[Dadmanly]

Every time Clintons and their ilk sit down for these patsy, softball interviews, they lull themselves further and further into the notion that they are invincible.

Eventually, somebody, even a light weight like Russert, will ask real questions with persistence, and highlight evasions and inconsistencies.

Whether or not that will be early enough to pull back the curtain enough for voters to see Clinton for who she really is remains to be seen.

Keep in mind: if Clinton could win by being herself, she wouldn't need to control how she's perceived.

She wouldn't need to pretend, evade, and stick to tightly controlled appearances with friendly media.

Lying and fabricating are always a mark of weakness, however long and successfully the charade continues.

[Other Tom]

Say what you will about Russert, I've always thought he was an equal-opportunity interlocutor. I can't recall ever seeing Hillary interviewed by anybody who wasn't already in the tank for her. I suspect we will not see a Russert interview with her in the coming year.

[Other Tom]

And for this week's Tradesports update, I will note with interest that her contract price for the nomination just dropped below 71 cents for the first time since I've been monitoring it, which was before the driver's-license debate. It's now at 68.5.

[maryrose]

Her national poll numbers have also dropped consistently since the debate in Philly. Hil peaked too soon and it's downhill from here on out.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Speaking of taking the gloves off, Herbert Gintis slaps Paul Krugman around at Amazon.com:

This book epitomizes what is wrong with American liberalism. Krugman was a fine, perceptive international trade theorist, but he is a political hack, with nothing new to offer. There is one problem as far as Krugman is concerned: inequality. But inequality is an intellectual abstraction, not a politically motivating issue. People hated the Robber Barons because they were robbers and barons, not because they were rich. Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates do not send the Pinkerton men out to protect their ill-gotten gains; nor to the other super-rich. Socialists' ringing political slogans dealt with fairness, social progress, and power to the people, not "inequality." Moreover, a truly progressive movement must built on technical progress that is impeded by the reigning powers that be (Sam Bowles and I call this efficiency-enhancing egalitarian redistribution), not the beggar-thy-neighbor, zero-sum-game sort of redistribution favored by Krugman.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Speaking of taking the gloves off, Herbert Gintis slaps Paul Krugman around at Amazon.com:

This book epitomizes what is wrong with American liberalism. Krugman was a fine, perceptive international trade theorist, but he is a political hack, with nothing new to offer. There is one problem as far as Krugman is concerned: inequality. But inequality is an intellectual abstraction, not a politically motivating issue. People hated the Robber Barons because they were robbers and barons, not because they were rich. Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates do not send the Pinkerton men out to protect their ill-gotten gains; nor to the other super-rich. Socialists' ringing political slogans dealt with fairness, social progress, and power to the people, not "inequality." Moreover, a truly progressive movement must built on technical progress that is impeded by the reigning powers that be (Sam Bowles and I call this efficiency-enhancing egalitarian redistribution), not the beggar-thy-neighbor, zero-sum-game sort of redistribution favored by Krugman.

[PFwhatdidyoudream?]

Welcome, my dear, to the machine.

DoS expressed interest?

I am tired of hearing fool.

MLK said 'I was a fool' because he was dealing with lucifer.

I was a fool.....................