Monday, August 17, 2015

Why don't political candidates do this more often?

Interviewed by the NYT, Bernie Sanders was asked an inane question. Check out his response...
Do you think it’s fair that Hillary’s hair gets a lot more scrutiny than yours does? Hillary’s hair gets more scrutiny than my hair?

Yeah. Is that what you’re asking?

Yeah. O.K., Ana, I don’t mean to be rude here. I am running for president of the United States on serious issues, O.K.? Do you have serious questions?

I can defend that as a serious question. There is a gendered reason — When the media worries about what Hillary’s hair looks like or what my hair looks like, that’s a real problem. We have millions of people who are struggling to keep their heads above water, who want to know what candidates can do to improve their lives, and the media will very often spend more time worrying about hair than the fact that we’re the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people.
In 2004, Chris Matthews asked John Kerry "What's your favorite movie?" -- and later insisted that he had asked a serious question. There's always a way to rationalize anything.

We'd have a better country if both Republican and Democratic candidates brusquely -- even rudely -- told idiot interviewers to stop talking about nonsense.
Comments:
Matthews also swallows the Warren report, so there you go.
 
That's why Trump is doing so well, he's willing to tell the idiot interviewers "You're an idiot". If Hillary would follow suit then she'd be cruising to a nomination instead of facing these idiot puff pieces 'is Joe running?'.

Tell these media pretty people "You're an idiot" and you'll instantly gain the respect of millions of Americans.
 
Matthews also swallows the Warren report

Irrelevant. The current Conventional Wisdom is that the Warren Report must not be questioned. And whatever Matthews actually thinks (or "swallows"), he wouldn't have his lucrative show-biz gig if he strayed from the current CW. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the CW may change, or Matthews' bosses may decide that the network needs some shock treatment to juice its low ratings. When that happens, Matthews will be in "the forefront" of Warren Report criticism, with shocking "new" revelations and evidence, and he'll be full of anger at the "suppression" of this evidence. Young people watching will think he'd been trying to "uncover" the facts his entire career!

PhilK

 
If Hillary Clinton EVER berated a reporter--for anything--they would say she was hypersensitive, irritable, hostile to the media, unstable, evil, etc., etc. The Righties would say it--and the Bernie people would repeat it.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home


This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?






























FeedWind












FeedWind