David Gregory Does Battle With Talking-Point Dispensing Robot

Earlier this morning, the Hillary Clinton campaign decided that they'd save a little money and use today's morning news shows to mount a lengthy campaign commercial, chock-a-block with all the new focus-tested sentences that have been the centerpiece of her campaign ever since its "Well, Okay, Then, We're About 'Change' Now, Too" Reboot. It was a perfect plan.
Unfortunately, this required her to confront the Today Show's David Gregory, who inconveniently decided to start "asking questions", and "holding" her campaign "accountable" to statements they had made.

GREGORY: So, Senator, if people look at the last six weeks and they might question how Hillary Clinton responds to a crisis or how she handles pressure and they might point to the fact that you complained about the all boys network of presidential politics in the wake of the Philadelphia debate, they would see your husband complaining about media coverage of you, they'd see your campaign raise the past drug issue and use by Barack Obama or questioned him for his ambition, and they might say, well, this is really what we don't like about politics. Is that fair?
CLINTON: Well, i don't think that's at all an accurate representation of my campaign. You know, campaigns are like life. You know, some days are perfect. Some days aren't. But what really matters is where you're headed, what you do when you suffer some kind of, you know, problem, how you put yourself back on track and, you know, I've been doing this a long time.
GREGORY: I'm sorry. You said that was unfair. You dispute those were how you handled things in the wake of hitting that rough patch?
CLINTON: I'm going to let voters decide that, not the press. I'm going to let voters make up their minds. what I see happening here and across the country is voters are responding very positively to my campaign. I'm a proven leader. That's what The Des Moines Register said, what a lot of my supporters say.

Right! Silly David Gregory! As they say: Post Des Moines Register, ergo propter Des Moines Register! Still, Gregory pressed on something one of Clinton's "supporters" has said.

GREGORY: Let's talk about a key issue you raise on the campaign trail, that's your experience. It was your husband, the former president, that said Barack Obama as president would be "rolling the dice" with america's future. Assuming you agree with that, let's be clear. an Obama presidency is a risk to what? America's national security, America's economic health? What precisely?
CLINTON: Well, i would ask people to read the Des Moines Register editorial. Basically what they said is we need a proven leader. We have tough times.
GREGORY: What does it mean? We know what The Register said.
CLINTON: I think that's one of the principal cases for my candidacy. If you want to know what changes I'll make, look at the changes I've already made. Everybody talks about change. Everybody talks about change in this campaign. Some people think you get change by demanding it. Some think you get it by hoping for it. I think you get it by doing really hard work. That's what I've done.
GREGORY: Senator Clinton, you're not answering the question. Your husband said it would be "rolling the dice" for America's future if he were elected. What's the risk to America if Barack Obama is the president?
CLINTON: [Pause] You know, he not only said that, but the Des Moines Register editorial implied that.

Wow! It's a good thing the Des Moines Register didn't come out in favor of Clinton jumping into the Dale Maffit Reservoir!
Anyway, Gregory, growing tired of this battle of wits, attempted to shift the discussion. But Hillary hadn't yet finished dispensing platitudes.

GREGORY: So you're choosing not to answer that question. let me ask you another issue --
CLINTON: No, I'm -- no, wait a minute. I'm making the case for my candidacy. I'm very happy that I have -- I have strong supporters and I have editorial support. Well, you know, I think that voters will have to judge us, and that's what I welcome. I invite people to do that.

Right. Scrutiny is welcome, so long as it leads to an endorsement. Otherwise: DOES NOT COMPUTE!
(Watch the video.)

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1344596469 http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=1178199204

Comments

[nellie]

There is TOO MUCH ATTENTION on Hillary Clinton. Good grief, give it a rest and give her a break. She's not my choice, but she's better than any Republican nominee.

Either it's too much praise or too much criticism. It seems what they say about Hillary is true—she's divisive. But to me it looks like the media force her into that category. Can the bloggers on Huffington Post please try to give this candidate some fair treatment?

I don't want all Hillary all the time. And when I do read about her, I'd like to read something that isn't dripping with emotion.

*sigh*

[jsarets]

I thought Hillary was really smart and stuff. That's a really easy question. The key is to realize that it's a fill in the blank. Once you get that, it's not that hard.

"An Obama presidency is a threat to what?"

You see, in this question, the "what" is the blank. He could have said "blank" instead, but I guess he wanted to be a little tricky.

Here's what we were looking for:

"An Obama presidency is a threat to... my political ambitions.­"

My political ambitions. If Obama becomes president, then Hillary doesn't. So obvious when you think about it. Better luck next time, Hillary. Well, there you have it folks...

But in all seriousness, the reason she didn't answer the question is because it's stupid. It's a dumb question with an obvious (honest) answer, and the only purpose of it is to point out that no candidate in their right mind would answer that question directly. Candidates go negative all the time, we all realize it when it happens, and we don't need David Gregory to point it out.

There's a market for a much more cynical new anchor on network television. Someone who would have done the interview like this:

"Good morning, Senator Clinton, great to have you on the show. You recently received the editorial endorsement of the Des Moines Register, and that's all you're going to want to talk about. So go ahead, you've got 3 minutes."

That's a lot harder for a candidate to handle gracefully than Gregory's "aggressive" line of questioning.

[beckerbeavers]

Unfortunately, Senator Hillary Clinton can't answer a straight answer. That is another reason America doesn't want a slick, calculating person who can't shoot straight and answer a simple question. Yada..Yada­...Yada.

Anyway when President Edwards gets elected, Hillary can enjoy her beautiful years together with Bill on Long Island and call Vice-President Obama and "roll the dice" on the phone with him.

America needs leaders who can speak clearly and answer questions instead of beating around the bush - we already have had 7 years of Bush - America has a huge rebuilding and going back to the OLD BELTWAY POLITICS of the CLINTONS aren't going to help Americans.

[bbpenney]

That is the funniest headline -- Onionesque. I love it.

[RusStyles]

Somebody needs to call Hill out. Obama won't. And I respect him for that decision. But, her singular ambition to occupy the WH borders on fixation.

I hope the people in IA, NH and SC smack her prevaricating, egotisitical ass down; a hat trick would no doubt lead to a precipitous end to the Clinton 08 Inevitability Campaign, and--proabably--an emotional meltdown.

[SCharb]

Maybe if we just pour water on her, she'll short-circuit?

[bluesky49876]

I do not agree with Hillary on many of the issues but most smart and intelligent people give nuanced responses because they do not see the world as black or white. What some may consider dodge and weaving may actually be expression of reluctance to be boxed in fixed positions. I am not saying that it was the case with Hillary since I did not see the interview. What irks about me about the HuffPost is this barrage of gratuitous attacks; it twists everything she says and turns it into Willie Horton headlines. I think it should be given Rush Lambaugh award.

[apcalc]

Gregory asks an "Are you still beating your wife?" question for which there is no good answer.

Hillary responds that she is advocating for her own candidacy. Perfect.

You anti Hillary people are pathetic. You must be former Nader voters who helped usher W into office.

Get Real people! Vote for the Democratic nominee-whoever it is.

[policod]

After the good news from the Register, I thought we might see a new Hillary, but after a heroic effort by Gregory she continued to weave and dodge. She sounded exactly the way she sounded in Philadelphia. I think we have captured the real essence of Hillary. Kudoos to David Gregory. She bobbed; she weaved; she didn't answer any of his questions; but she let us know exactly who she was. I hope all Iowa was listening.

[karmax]

One more thing...af­ter ole' Dave Gregory went to one of those White House dinners for Prince Charles, he started looking out for Bushie Boy...all you guys ended up bowing to that evil little punk "W"....suc­kers....

[karmax]

I have read the Huffington Post, watched Matthews, CNN and ALL the other critics on TV and in this blog and "liberal media" my butt, you people are so down on Hillary you have to be working for "FIXED NEWS"...Ru­pert paying you?? I want her to win much more now because I hope you and the Repubs jump off a bridge or better yet, leave the country. After that Bush idiot and you criticize her????

[bluesky49876]

I think, liberals and democrats are being duped by Ariana. I have to no problem if it chooses to criticise Hillary because of her positions on the issues, but these daily and hourly callings are pretty despicable and its staff should be ashamed of themselves.

[bluesky49876]

HuffPost is outdoing FOX and the Swift-boaters in its hatred of Clinton. As far as I am concerned, Ariana is no different from either of the two. It is just as vicious. I think Ariana, a former Republican, and HuffPost are trying to divide the left and help the republican party. Nothing else explains these hourly and gratuitous attacks on Hillary.

[Zhonni]

The question is fair, but it was clear she was not going to give an inch.

Obama's candidacy is not a threat to national security is something Hillary did not have the courage to say. She could have said that and add that she believes she is the most prepared but she didn't.

It seems every time she gives an interview, she ends up looking bad, instead of looking better.

[xrayman]

The journalism standards for HuffPo have completely gone down the toilet. I've seen a lot of name calling in the "comments" sections but this is the worst as far as posts go.

It sounds desperate when you revert to name calling.