I caught a few seconds of HRC on TV this morning

[cyclonefence]

I have avoided seeing her interviews--my pain is too raw--but in just those few seconds I saw something that really bothered me. She was talking about the MSM's part in her defeat, and I knew exactly what she was talking about and I know she's right. She was treated unimaginably unfairly and until the very end of the campaign DT's every lie and slander was reported with little or no fact-checking, while Emails and Benghazi drums were beaten nonstop. So I'm on her side on this.

The trouble is, she doesn't communicate well (in certain, important, situations, anyway), and it truly sounded like she was blaming the media for her loss. She wasn't; she was pointing out the role of the media in the election and suggesting that some introspection on MSM's part might be a good idea before the next election. But it sounded like blaming.

It just breaks my heart.

[avebury]

1. You should have watched

her interview on Rachel the other night. Totally awesome.

[question everything]

9. Or Judy Woodruff on PBS. Part II will be on Monday

on the NewsHour (check local listing)

[sagesnow]

2. avebury is right, Rachel's interview

with Hillary is the best one i've seen. You may want to bookmark this for when you are ready:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017457287

[frazzled]

3. "a few seconds"

How can you tell if someone communicates well in a few seconds? Perhaps there was a broader discussion that you missed in your few seconds that would explain the discourse? Perhaps you caught a few seconds out of context, or simply a few awkward seconds out of ten or fifteen minutes of speech?

Also, for people who claim Hillary Clinton doesn't communicate well, I wonder how they explain the electoral wins of George W. Bush and Donald Trump, both of whom (though in different ways) couldn't string 3 words together coherently (and had no knowledge to boot). So is it really communication that bothers you, or is it some other factor you may be totally unaware of (her looks, her age, her gender).

[NNadir]

4. Well, if she were blaming the media, she'd be right. After working to put an insane person...

...in command of the world's largest arsenal of weapons, they're generating lots of revenue from people watching them complain that an insane person is in charge of the world's largest arsenal of weapons.

It was all emails all the time with them and as far as I'm concerned I blame the media for her "loss" and of course, the slavery artifact in the US constitution, the Electoral College.

Ms. Clinton communicates well...with bright people. Unfortunately there aren't that many bright people in the media, and what they "communicate" is a love of ignorance and stupidity.

[treestar]

14. I think you have nailed it

"It sounds like blaming" to the people who want to say that - they are jumping on what she says to find an excuse to dismiss it, not listening.

And there are some who just want her to blame herself entirely. Which is not possible. She's not the only one involved.

[delisen]

5. I did not get that impression.

[Madam45for2923]

6. Nope, me neither.

[mcar]

7. Was it her voice?

[cyclonefence]

8. Oh no

Not at all. It was a kind of over-explaining that never really came to a clear point.

Jesus. Nobody seems to have understood or maybe even read my op.

[mcar]

10. I read it

I've also heard/seen several of her interviews this week. The current occupant of the White House can barely string a whole sentence together but you write an OP criticizing HRC for not communicating something to your vague satisfaction?

Again,

[cyclonefence]

11. Did you understand

that I was not comparing her with anyone? Did you understand that it breaks my heart that this brilliant, capable woman has so much trouble explaining admittedly sometimes complex ideas in easily-understood phrases? I don't want her to dumb down; I want her to have advisors who can help her frame her thoughts so that the thoughts, not some garbage about not accepting responsibility, are the message she conveys.

Evidence for what I am saying was easy to find during the campaign; I will mention only her speech in WV about "putting miners out of work."

I feel your pain, believe me. We should sit down with gin & tonic and talk about this. Hillary Clinton may not be the only person whose words get in the way of her message. BTW I'm looking in the mirror, not disparaging a fellow DUer.

[treestar]

16. This is always the case

In 2000, Al Gore was "dull" and "boring." Any candidate talking about serious things in a serious way is not entertaining and may take some thought to follow. So the media deserts that for the ratings that outlandishness gets them.

People - voters- need to get more serious and not treat it as if picking the POTUS ought to be about who wins the personality contest. We had both with Obama, but that is rare.

[nini]

12. But they deserve part of the blame

I don't see why saying that is wrong

To your point. Talking about their role does bring it out and is a warning for the future too.

[cyclonefence]

13. I must have had a stroke

It seems no one responding to my op got my point. Of course MSM deserve part of the blame, but that wasn't what she said. She said that the press should look to its motives and behaviors during the campaign and maybe do things differently in the future. This was immediately picked up by RW outlets as more she won't accept responsibility for her loss. I wish she were able to express her thoughts--99% of which I agree with--in clearer words, harder for her enemies to misinterpret.

She said that media coverage played a part in her loss, but in no way did she say "I blame the media"--yet that is the constant claim of RW outlets.

[nini]

15. They will take ANYTHING she says and twist it

That will never stop and only proves her point. She will never reach them or change their minds because they are fueled by hate and big money from the right.

Those who understand so many factors affected the outcome will know where she's coming from.


The right wing outlets will never cut her any slack or admit their role in putting that monster in office.

[treestar]

17. This

There is no way she could put things where the right wing wouldn't find a way to twist it. And the twisting could appeal to the ignorant and the bigoted.

[mcar]

18. Who cares what RW outlets say?

They have lied about her for decades. I have heard/seen her discuss that part of her book. She is very clear about it.

Poster above suggested you watch Judy Woodruff's interview on PBS. I'd further suggest you follow it up with the Shields/Brooks discussion. They agreed with her, as have much of the MSM. They won't ever change but they are not criticizing her for what she said.

Maybe watch more than a few seconds before you do an entire OP about how she doesn't communicate well. Just a suggestion.