Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Even media liberals aghast at Hillary CNN Interview

Even media liberals aghast at Hillary CNN Interview

“Still a lot of rust in this political vehicle.”

It’s probably safe to say that there aren’t many liberals in media who were impressed by Hillary Clinton’s recent interview on CNN.

Chuck Todd of NBC, Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, Mike Barnicle of MSNBC and others had little praise.

David Rutz of the Washington Free Beacon put together a highlight reel of media reactions:

The Media Thought Hillary’s CNN Interview Was Terrible

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s first wide-ranging, sit-down interview of the 2016 election cycle was a dud, according to mainstream media observers.

MSNBC’s Morning Joe panelists thought she was evasive, fearful, and gave off an annoyed vibe. On immigration, she made untrue claims about her Republican opponents and CNN’s Jake Tapper warned her about overplaying her hand. CNN’s Alisyn Camerota called her out for blaming right-wing attacks for her sinking poll numbers, reminiscent of her accusations of a “vast right-wing conspiracy“ when she was first lady.

Meet the Press‘s Chuck Todd, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, and BBC’s Katty Kay all said, separately, she looked “defensive” on questions about her private email server.

Watch the video:

Lloyd Grove of the left-leaning Daily Beast was also uncharitable:

Hillary Plays the Victim in CNN Interview

Any Clinton supporters who hoped that a New Hillary would emerge from Tuesday’s televised grilling of the Democratic presidential front-runner had to be brutally disillusioned.

The Hillary Clinton who showed up for her 19-minute back and forth with CNN political correspondent Brianna Keilar—touted as Clinton’s first one-on-one interview with a national reporter since she declared her candidacy three months ago—was the same Hillary Clinton the country has come to know over nearly a quarter-century on the American political scene.

Advertised by her associates as warm and funny in private, she came across as guarded, quibbling, and pokerfaced under the TV lights.

Taylor Marsh offered this brutal observation:

Hillary on CNN was Hard to Watch

WELL, THAT didn’t go very well and it wasn’t the media’s fault. Considering even the campaign knew she was paying the price for “corralling” the press Hillary Clinton didn’t seem to have a plan for what she wanted to communicate. None of this matters, however, because Democrats love her and want her, and CNN’s Brianna Keilar interview won’t change anything. But new media and cable are loving that Hillary finally did an interview and the reviews aren’t worth the access she offered.

Where was Hillary’s humor? Where’s her signature charm? Both of these attributes that are so compelling in private evaporate on camera.

Josh Vorhees of Slate even documented all of Hillary’s non-answers in the interview.

Maybe this is why Mrs. Clinton has been avoiding the press for months.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

She ain’t got it. And that’s true of a lot of “its”.

She’s a dud.

Remember when our trolls used to do Snoopy dances about how inevitable she was?

Ah, memories…

    Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | July 9, 2015 at 10:45 am

    What “rust” are they talking about? She’s never been good. She didn’t help Bill in ’92, dissing Tammy Wynette and wives who bake cookies. Her arrogance on health care. And her “pretty in pink” press conference over Whitewater was full of dodges and non-denials.

    This IS Hillary. There was never anything more.

    Democrats have terrible memories. But if they didn’t, they couldn’t be Democrats.

Media liberals don’t mind a Totalitarian like Hillary. But since they do have some standards, they expect Hillary to be good at it.

Empress Trudy | July 9, 2015 at 9:28 am

But it doesn’t matter. She could strip off her top and set the set on fire and they’d still vote for her. She could in Federal prison on election day and they’ll vote for her. It’s simply not relevant. All the dems have to ensure is that her running mate can step in when he’s called to.

“Where was her signature charm?” In the same drawer as Nurse Ratchet’s bikini.

    cbenoistd in reply to cbenoistd. | July 9, 2015 at 9:31 am

    That was Ratched of me.

    Observer in reply to cbenoistd. | July 9, 2015 at 10:13 am

    Yes, I laugh out loud reading this crap about how “warm and funny and charming” Hillary supposedly is.

    Do these hacks think every American who was alive in the 90’s is now suffering from memory loss or dementia or something? Hillary Clinton has long been known to be cold, arrogant, haughty, quick-tempered, and foul-mouthed. Her lamp-throwing, expletive-strewn tantrums in the White House were widely reported, as was her rudeness to her Secret Service detail and the White House household staff (who were told never to make eye contact with Her Royal Highness). And of course, we all witnessed her paranoia, sneakiness, and willingness to lie on many occasions.

    Hillary may coo over her granddaughter, but that doesn’t mean she’s still not the same awful person she’s always been. Even Hitler was nice to his dogs.

      Estragon in reply to Observer. | July 9, 2015 at 10:47 am

      Exactly. But Democrats always choose the fantasy over reality.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to Observer. | July 9, 2015 at 12:15 pm

      She was charming a long long time ago. At least two people who were in her law school class have told me that. But that was before she met Bill and made her deal with the devil.

      She could be the figure at the center of a tragic novel. The ambitious woman who hoped she could change her husband and instead became a parody in the attempt.

      Even Hitler was nice to his dogs.

      And then he poisoned them as he was losing the war, rather than let them live on after him.

      Let this be a lesson for the leftists’ various lapdogs.

“Any Clinton supporters who hoped that a New Hillary would emerge…”

This is what, the third or fourth “New Hillary” launch in as many months? With so much trouble getting off the ground, I have to wonder is the campaign’s long-term strategy.

    Estragon in reply to ss396. | July 9, 2015 at 10:48 am

    I understood their hope that “a new Hillary would emerge” to mean they are rooting for it to burst out of her chest like the creature in “Alien.”

I always get the feeling they would like to write and speak like this about Obama, but are just too afraid to go down that path. So they continue to fawn over him rather than risk the wrath of their colleagues. Hillary? Well, why not?

POLITICO

@politico

The war of words between Hillary Clinton and Trey Gowdy over her email practices is seriously heating up http://politi.co/1MfX4Wx
8:35 PM – 8 Jul 2015

See, this is how the Mushroom Media lies about lies, told by liars.

    Paul in reply to Ragspierre. | July 9, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    Yes, a pathological liar being called out on her latest lies with incontrovertible fact is a “…war of words” in Progville.

    They continue to carry her water in public, but they must be getting very, very nervous.

Lucien Cordier | July 9, 2015 at 10:58 am

I’m now convinced, to my horror, that Bernie Sanders will be the next President. We’ve moved beyond the tipping point and there’s no hope of recovering, not even a chance of slowing the fall. What’s even more horrifying to me is that I have to admit to myself that Sanders would (will?) be a better (less dangerous) President than Hillary Clinton. At least we might know what he’s up to and what to expect.

    tom swift in reply to Lucien Cordier. | July 9, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    The tipping point which we have passed is that liberals are no longer distinguishable from socialists.

    That wasn’t always so, but it certainly is now. Some would argue that they’re barely distinguishable form the Communists. The Communist Party of the USA has made this claim—the only point of serious difference between them is that the CPUSA objects to the Dem’s snuggle-bunny relationship with the ultra-rich.

    But all this means is that the full socialist assault on America is finally out in the open. It doesn’t mean that it’s won yet.

      The tipping point which we have passed is that liberals are no longer distinguishable from socialists.

      I first misread that as “sociopaths”.

      But it works either way.

      Lucien Cordier in reply to tom swift. | July 9, 2015 at 10:57 pm

      I see that you understand the basis of my position but disagree as to the severity of the situation. But they own most of the media, schools and courts. They (quite easily) divide us by race, class and income, and as they like to tell us, whites will soon be a minority and there are far too few non-white and gay conservatives (they make it too difficult). I don’t see a rosy future.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Lucien Cordier. | July 10, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    Bernie Sanders is not going to be the next president.

    There’s not enough support for him even Donald Trump runs as a third party candidate after not getting the Republican nomination.

    If Donald Trump got the Republican nomination, maybe then, but neither he nor Bernard Sanders will win their respective party’s nominations.

    Bernard Sanders will just demolish Hillary Clinton, that is all.

    Somebody else will get the Democratic nomination.

    Unless you think nobody else will apply.

Lucien Cordier | July 9, 2015 at 11:26 am

CLINTON: … What’s great about America is anybody can run for president. That is literally true. …

“Literally true”? Uh, no…

Henry Hawkins | July 9, 2015 at 1:19 pm

For liberals, she’s too calculatingly centrist and too obviously mendacious, to the point they cannot support her without further damaging their nosediving credibility. That’s how the Obama era has ruined the Democrat Party, by pulling it far leftward and institutionalizing intransparency and deceit.

There’s a reason Willy dabbles in cigars and looks elsewhere for love.

rust sounds as if Hillary can be fixed. Yet the real message of her remarks are

– she is oblivious to how she looks and does not care
– she treats even the media with disrespect
– that is a reflection of how the media genuflects to her
– she is subject to LEGAL issues, not just political ones

It does not matter. I see it on TV,blogs,and press….the proglodytes will line up to vote for her.
These people would vote for the devil himself to keep their gov s flowing.
No matter that we are headed toward a debt wall at 100 mph. And When we crash and they go hungry they will blame the conservatives.
No brains.

opps…meant to type gov benefits.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend