Hillary Clinton made a rare appearance on Fox News Wednesday. The interview was with Bret Baier. Every one of Baier’s questions told the viewers, “Don’t worry, we don’t like her,” but I think Clinton held her own nicely.
My “favorite” part? Baier pressed Clinton for details about how she’d handle the economy differently from President Obama, then interrupted her as she was still explaining.
Maybe that’s because Baier just couldn’t wait to get to the email "scandal" and the "question" of whether or not she'll be indicted. The emails took up about half the interview.
Watch it below, from the June 8 Special Report, and let me know what you think.
Do you like this post?
Kevin Koster commented
2016-06-09 15:19:31 -0400
· Flag
Thanks Bradford. What did you mean about the Clinton Myth?
Bradford Plows commented
2016-06-09 15:14:04 -0400
· Flag
Kevin,
You should strive for lucidity over volume in your writing.
You should strive for lucidity over volume in your writing.
Kevin Koster commented
2016-06-09 14:15:40 -0400
· Flag
With Sanders’ announcement and President Obama’s endorsement, it is my hope that we’ll see the Dems begin to unify now. We won’t hear anything positive about this from Fox News, but why would they break their track record to do so?
Kevin Koster commented
2016-06-09 14:05:35 -0400
· Flag
Eyes, this is but one example of Fox News distortion and hypocrisy in this area. Although I’ll argue that the labor participation rate isn’t a completely wrong number to follow – as long as you follow it consistently. The left wing has always followed that number, under Dem presidents and GOP presidents. Pacifica newscasts about job numbers regularly include that statistic as a corrective. I still remember Larry Bensky discussing the true unemployment numbers that existed under GW Bush while the GOP was trumpeting how wonderful they thought the economy was doing at that time. But the left continued the same approach when it came to Obama’s presidency as well, so they’ve been consistent.
The right wing, on the other hand, went from completely cheerleading the economy under GW Bush (even when it was completely tanking) to putting on the sack cloth and uttering gloomy thoughts the moment President Obama took office. Suddenly in 2009 and 2010, the right wing discovered the labor participation rate – something they had ignored for the prior 8 years. Guess they must have missed it under all that paperwork.
And that’s consistent with the whole gas prices sham attack on Obama – the nonsense about gas prices skyrocketing under Obama – as a meme to show that the economy was a mess thanks to him. (“My God, under Obama, gas prices are hitting FIVE DOLLARS A GALLON!!!”) Which of course conveniently left out the regular gas price spikes during the GW Bush years, where summer months saw the prices sail into the stratosphere and not pull back that much in the winter. When the left noted this under Bush, we were told that this was how the market worked and the prices were fair and there wasn’t any gouging happening. When the 2008 campaign hit full swing, suddenly the oil companies really dropped their prices, thus belying everything the right had been saying for the prior four years. So when Obama took office, the prices were at the lowest they’d been in quite a while. Within a few months, the oil companies jacked up the prices again – only now the right wing approach was to blame this on President Obama. Makes perfect sense. My favorite part of this was where Hannity would show a chart of gas prices that conveniently began in January 2009, happily leaving off the prior five years of price spikes. You’d think they didn’t believe their viewers even remembered RECENT history…
The right wing, on the other hand, went from completely cheerleading the economy under GW Bush (even when it was completely tanking) to putting on the sack cloth and uttering gloomy thoughts the moment President Obama took office. Suddenly in 2009 and 2010, the right wing discovered the labor participation rate – something they had ignored for the prior 8 years. Guess they must have missed it under all that paperwork.
And that’s consistent with the whole gas prices sham attack on Obama – the nonsense about gas prices skyrocketing under Obama – as a meme to show that the economy was a mess thanks to him. (“My God, under Obama, gas prices are hitting FIVE DOLLARS A GALLON!!!”) Which of course conveniently left out the regular gas price spikes during the GW Bush years, where summer months saw the prices sail into the stratosphere and not pull back that much in the winter. When the left noted this under Bush, we were told that this was how the market worked and the prices were fair and there wasn’t any gouging happening. When the 2008 campaign hit full swing, suddenly the oil companies really dropped their prices, thus belying everything the right had been saying for the prior four years. So when Obama took office, the prices were at the lowest they’d been in quite a while. Within a few months, the oil companies jacked up the prices again – only now the right wing approach was to blame this on President Obama. Makes perfect sense. My favorite part of this was where Hannity would show a chart of gas prices that conveniently began in January 2009, happily leaving off the prior five years of price spikes. You’d think they didn’t believe their viewers even remembered RECENT history…
Eyes On Fox commented
2016-06-09 13:47:34 -0400
· Flag
Actually, I goofed and retirees fall into the labor participation rate, another stat Foxies distort. Which explains why I’m not doing off the cuff interviews on Fox. Leave it to the liberal pros like Pat Caddell. But wait… 😉
Eyes On Fox commented
2016-06-09 13:42:00 -0400
· Flag
Folks, naturally it’s hard for Hillary to win against a partisan propaganda factory like Fox because she’s on the wrong ‘team’. I tend to think she should ignore Fox since their audience isn’t going to vote for her no matter what and the Foxies will spin negative just about anything she says.
Bret, for example, hopes to scare fence sitting conservatives uneasy with bigot Trump. So his economic question is a gotcha one to force her either to defend the anti-Christ Obama or appear to distance herself from him so they can use that to whack both him and Hillary (e.g., even Hillary is running from his record). Which is one reason I suspect Bret quickly interrupted Hillary mentioning the economic recovery – we certainly don’t want that on the record.
Hillary almost impressed me with her ‘setting the framework’ protest to his interruption but she, IMHO, unwittingly fell into Bret’s trap by immediately going into some differences. Say ‘Sorry Bret but I’m going to take a few minutes to highlight Obama economic policy successes I plan to continue because your audience may not be aware of them since conservatives have done a good job of distorting his record’.
A perfect example is them pretending the ‘real unreported [by the dastardly government] unemployment rate’ is some astronomical figure like 15% because of discouraged workers [who are reported by the dastardly government]. A teachable moment is to point out to Bret our aging population would be retiring anyhow and to point out our economy requires more training than ever so many are going back to school or earning advanced degrees. It’s also a nice segue to making college and technical training more affordable for all.
A segue to economic equality is to point out an overwhelming number of discouraged workers won’t consider minimum wage jobs because the pay is so low. Proof it should be a living wage.
As Bret starts choking on her responses, you’ll see his interest in follow-up interviews evaporate. 😉
Bret, for example, hopes to scare fence sitting conservatives uneasy with bigot Trump. So his economic question is a gotcha one to force her either to defend the anti-Christ Obama or appear to distance herself from him so they can use that to whack both him and Hillary (e.g., even Hillary is running from his record). Which is one reason I suspect Bret quickly interrupted Hillary mentioning the economic recovery – we certainly don’t want that on the record.
Hillary almost impressed me with her ‘setting the framework’ protest to his interruption but she, IMHO, unwittingly fell into Bret’s trap by immediately going into some differences. Say ‘Sorry Bret but I’m going to take a few minutes to highlight Obama economic policy successes I plan to continue because your audience may not be aware of them since conservatives have done a good job of distorting his record’.
A perfect example is them pretending the ‘real unreported [by the dastardly government] unemployment rate’ is some astronomical figure like 15% because of discouraged workers [who are reported by the dastardly government]. A teachable moment is to point out to Bret our aging population would be retiring anyhow and to point out our economy requires more training than ever so many are going back to school or earning advanced degrees. It’s also a nice segue to making college and technical training more affordable for all.
A segue to economic equality is to point out an overwhelming number of discouraged workers won’t consider minimum wage jobs because the pay is so low. Proof it should be a living wage.
As Bret starts choking on her responses, you’ll see his interest in follow-up interviews evaporate. 😉
Alberto Rodriguez commented
2016-06-09 12:24:51 -0400
· Flag
That’s It?..Only an 8 minute interview?.. What ever happen to Fox news crying about HC avoiding not doing an interview with them because she’s afraid of all the tough questions other media networks were so afraid to ask her? How Fox was gonna pin her to the wall… For months all their shows had been trying to get her to do a show on Fox and bragging she’s too scared..You’ll think if they do get her.. it’ll be at least an hour show.. Boy I had the popcorn ready for this with the phone unhooked..How does Bret put it? “WE’RE PRESS FOR TIME” ..REALLY!!!! No Fox News I ain’t buying it..You planned on doing an hour show..You asked lots of questions and failed to come up with something damaging but instead got nothing..NADA.. ZILCH..You were forced to do only an 8 minute segment because of it..What about Benghazi?, Instead you gave your viewers the impression there’s more to come..B#*^$hit..You got nothing to report that’ll do HC damage only because you would of done aired it..Now your viewers are left thinking there is more to come and stay tune..“SAME BAT TIME..SAME BAT CHANNEL”..
luke dougie commented
2016-06-09 12:15:24 -0400
· Flag
James Carville famously put it during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential run, when it comes to winning elections, it’s the economy, stupid.
Most Americans’ views on the economy boil down to how fast their pay is rising, their job security and the cost of living. That gives economists like Daco, who spend most of their time thinking about things like GDP and productivity, a useful framework for predicting elections.
http://www.mylittleponycheats.com/
Most Americans’ views on the economy boil down to how fast their pay is rising, their job security and the cost of living. That gives economists like Daco, who spend most of their time thinking about things like GDP and productivity, a useful framework for predicting elections.
http://www.mylittleponycheats.com/
Bemused commented
2016-06-09 10:52:01 -0400
· Flag
Methinks this was a case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. It would have been worse had the foxies been able to keep on complaining that she refused their invitations. Better to face the idiots than to allow them to gloat that she’s afraid of them.
If I remember correctly, the FBI did a lot of meddling in politics under J.Edgar Hoover. I do so dearly hope that they no longer do that sort of thing. A delay in closing the email matter would tell me otherwise.
If I remember correctly, the FBI did a lot of meddling in politics under J.Edgar Hoover. I do so dearly hope that they no longer do that sort of thing. A delay in closing the email matter would tell me otherwise.
john howard commented
2016-06-09 09:03:18 -0400
· Flag
This just make me sick, why keep going on FAUX FAKE NEWS, it really make no sense!!!!!!!!
Eyes On Fox commented
2016-06-09 07:11:38 -0400
· Flag
You’ve got to love fair and balanced, clearly unbiased, drooling right-wing Bret Baier. Especially if you ever witnessed his fanboy Bush era adoring specials of Dubya and Rumsfeld then witness him interview any Democrat you choose to pick.
So his first question takes forever to come out of his Republican mouth because it’s prefaced with extensive editorial. Bernie Sanders got more votes than any other [scary term] Democratic Socialist we’re told. So when he interviews, say, Paul Ryan is he going to preface his interview saying Donald Trump got more votes than any other Republican racist so is the Speaker in tune with the racist GOP? ;^)
That said, Bret wasn’t as tough as you’d expect given all his and other Foxies’ raging on GOP TV against anything remotely left of center. So Hillary should have done it better.
The economy is probably the single most important thing on voters’ minds and Hillary bombed it, IMHO. It’s unclear to me how [tired talking point] make-work infrastructure jobs will ‘keep people in the middle-class’. Nor are green energy jobs going to a cornerstone of our economy – sorry Bernie fans. What about, say, new home construction? Any plans to reignite it from the basement it’s in where home ownership is in the dumps, for example? It isn’t really that hard, Hillary.
No gaffs addressing Email-gate but her responses weren’t particularly polished or well thought out. For example, she can’t say she’ll talk to anyone – an easy throw-away line – then not meet with the State Department investigators without having a better explanation. C’mon, Hillary. Put this baby to bed.
Instructions to self: Hold nose, vote Hillary. ;^)
So his first question takes forever to come out of his Republican mouth because it’s prefaced with extensive editorial. Bernie Sanders got more votes than any other [scary term] Democratic Socialist we’re told. So when he interviews, say, Paul Ryan is he going to preface his interview saying Donald Trump got more votes than any other Republican racist so is the Speaker in tune with the racist GOP? ;^)
That said, Bret wasn’t as tough as you’d expect given all his and other Foxies’ raging on GOP TV against anything remotely left of center. So Hillary should have done it better.
The economy is probably the single most important thing on voters’ minds and Hillary bombed it, IMHO. It’s unclear to me how [tired talking point] make-work infrastructure jobs will ‘keep people in the middle-class’. Nor are green energy jobs going to a cornerstone of our economy – sorry Bernie fans. What about, say, new home construction? Any plans to reignite it from the basement it’s in where home ownership is in the dumps, for example? It isn’t really that hard, Hillary.
No gaffs addressing Email-gate but her responses weren’t particularly polished or well thought out. For example, she can’t say she’ll talk to anyone – an easy throw-away line – then not meet with the State Department investigators without having a better explanation. C’mon, Hillary. Put this baby to bed.
Instructions to self: Hold nose, vote Hillary. ;^)
David Lindsay commented
2016-06-09 06:32:37 -0400
· Flag
Hillary can now tell Faux to fuck off for the rest of the year. She gave Faux one interview and they spent it on emails.
If Hillary won’t I will. Fuck off Faux, we’re just waiting for Rupert to croak now.
If Hillary won’t I will. Fuck off Faux, we’re just waiting for Rupert to croak now.
Bemused commented
2016-06-09 05:27:47 -0400
· Flag
I’m pretty confused about this oft-repeated-by-Trump claim that Sanders came in second only because the system was/is rigged. I mean, really! Clinton got a few million more votes than he did and she’s well ahead in the count of pledged delegates. Although the superdelegates sound like a way of tipping the scales, they would be acting against the outcome of the voting process were they to ignore those two facts. I’m increasingly disappointed with Sanders for playing up this silly unfounded and openly populist stance. He sounds a lot like Trump on this matter and that’s not fun at all.
So ironic that a supposedly “fair and balanced” channel that prides itself on being the voice of American exceptionalism should be so reluctant to report that a woman has finally been nominated for President of the USA. The troglodytes have finally found their man with a big mouth; I only hope they don’t give him the club, too. The similarities with the rise of fascism and nazism during the 30s are scary.
So ironic that a supposedly “fair and balanced” channel that prides itself on being the voice of American exceptionalism should be so reluctant to report that a woman has finally been nominated for President of the USA. The troglodytes have finally found their man with a big mouth; I only hope they don’t give him the club, too. The similarities with the rise of fascism and nazism during the 30s are scary.
Kevin Koster commented
2016-06-09 03:10:17 -0400
· Flag
It’s telling that this was (from what I can see) one of the only acknowledgements of the history that was made yesterday. Fox News made a point of ignoring that Clinton had not only beaten Sanders but beaten him decisively.
The right wing narrative had been to say that Sanders was about to win California and that Clinton could only get the nomination with the superdelegates, etc., so as to present her as a weak and unworthy candidate who couldn’t hope to compete with big strong Donald Trump. Except that the actual results showed Clinton sailing through to victory and in fact easily passing the threshold of pledged delegates to make her victory completely assured.
So what do we hear from Fox News? This abbreviated interview, clearly modulated to find as many attack points in a short time as possible. More frantic arm waving about emails. Promotion for an Ed Klein-style attack book on the Clintons by a disgruntled former Secret Service Man.
But not one single acknowledgement that Fox News had badly misreported this primary situation, or that Clinton had achieved anything in becoming the first woman to be nominated for President by either major party. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that Sean Hannity made a point of ignoring Clinton’s achievement and instead chose to stay with his talking points about Clinton only winning due to a “rigged” system and superdelegates.
The right wing narrative had been to say that Sanders was about to win California and that Clinton could only get the nomination with the superdelegates, etc., so as to present her as a weak and unworthy candidate who couldn’t hope to compete with big strong Donald Trump. Except that the actual results showed Clinton sailing through to victory and in fact easily passing the threshold of pledged delegates to make her victory completely assured.
So what do we hear from Fox News? This abbreviated interview, clearly modulated to find as many attack points in a short time as possible. More frantic arm waving about emails. Promotion for an Ed Klein-style attack book on the Clintons by a disgruntled former Secret Service Man.
But not one single acknowledgement that Fox News had badly misreported this primary situation, or that Clinton had achieved anything in becoming the first woman to be nominated for President by either major party. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that Sean Hannity made a point of ignoring Clinton’s achievement and instead chose to stay with his talking points about Clinton only winning due to a “rigged” system and superdelegates.