Usually you hear the saying, “go big, or go home.” In Hillary’s case, she’s going small with intent on going back to the White House. I can imagine the scenario where advisers decided that to bring the her back down to earth in the eyes of voters, she’ll need to scale down the campaign and start at the grassroots level to avoid the feel of a top-down coronation.

Report from the Des Moines Register:

Much has been made about the seven-year gap she allowed to pass after her “excruciating” caucus night loss in 2008 (her word, from her latest book). But Clinton made a beeline here after announcing her candidacy Sunday, telegraphing that she’s serious about winning the caucuses. She told reporters she had “a great time.” One of her staffers, Iowa Democratic operative Brenda Kole, vouched for that, saying Clinton genuinely enjoyed being back on the trail here. “She really had fun,” Kole told the Register.

Clinton pulled off a go-small strategy, traveling to small towns that aren’t the usual candidate targets. “She achieved authenticity by being in small settings talking with everyday folks,” said Clinton backer Jerry Crawford, a Des Moines lawyer and Democratic money guy. She approached this campaign like she knows she has something to prove to voters, but at the same time proved she’s the biggest game on the Democratic side, strategists said.

As noted, Iowa and Hillary have a history back to 2008 when she lost the caucus to Barack Obama. Polls show her with the race well in hand, but I don’t think her team wants to take anything for granted and risk opening the door to a Martin O’Malley or anyone else.

She’s limiting press access, but then I’m not surprised by that. She doesn’t need the press as much as they need/want her for stories. Other, lesser-known candidates need the press to get their name and story out. Hillary has the advantage of the bully-pulpit, of sorts. She can keep the press at bay, and bring them in when she wants to make a point.

43 COMMENTS

    • She’s running for president of the United States, not president of her homeowners association board.

      Can she avoid them for the next 570 days? I think anyone wishing to seek the highest office needs to be able to stop anywhere and speak to anyone. Take the praise with a “thank you” and take the criticism with class.

      We’re days into her campaign, nobody is paying attention except political reporters on assignment.

        • To elaborate. . .the media don’t have politics, they only care about themselves and money–and that means ratings.

          They won’t like that she seems inevitable. They’re gonna find ways to chop her down. It will help if O’Malley gets out there. He’ll say something, and the media will run back to her and ask, “what about this?”

          I’m sick of people like Rand saying, “Oh, poor me,” if he’s asked a question he doesn’t want to answer.

          • You just complained that the media is out to “moider” candidates for ratings.

            Then you complained that you don’t like it when candidates refuse to answer questions the media is trying to use to “moider” them with.

            I don’t think Rand was saying “poor me,” I think he wisely handled the media on an issue he knows voters aren’t concerned about right now.

            It’s a game.. the press pokes a candidate.. the candidate either handles it, defers, dodges, or implodes..

            • There’s no contradiction at all. The hypocrisy is the politicians who say, “you’re mean to me, but not them!” Balderdash. The media do poke the candidates, trying to make a scene–so people will watch the scene. They’ll “moider” anybody, but they prefer to take down the pompous (like Hillary).

              JFK always got good press, because he talked TO them, not AT them. He had no hubris to shoot down. Hillary does, and they’ll display it in Cinemascope®, as soon as she shows her face.

              The questions to Rand were legitimate: “People have been saying this, what is your response?” A politician with his wits about him knows what is being said, and likes to have a chance to respond.

              When reporters asked JFK how he can justify making the inexperienced RFK the AG, JFK joked, “I figure I’ll give him some experience before he goes into private practice,” or something like that. If it’s true, you don’t deny it.

              Worse for Rand, when he complained about HOW she asked the question, saying she should ask it this way–she started asking it in the exactly same words. But then he talks over her, so apparently, there is no right way to ask him a question. To the base, he was adequately expressing the “poor me” that they feel, but to independents, he was either being defensive–or just being a dick. And that gimmick won’t work more than once or twice.

              He’ll still beat Hillary with the media, but not if he keeps saying he’s better than them.

            • Only 40% of Americans trust the media “a great deal” or “a fair amount.”

              http://www.gallup.com/poll/176042/trust-mass-media-returns-time-low.aspx

              I don’t think many people, independents included, are losing any sleep when a candidate turns the table on a reporter. I think a lot of people cheer for it, especially if they also feel the question is biased or of partisan intent.

              I’m not sure which Rand episode to which you’re referring, there have been a few since his roll out.

            • 40% of a ‘Great Deal” or “a fair amount” of trust is much higher than I expected. Especially since Congress is 17%.

              I don’t think I WANT people to blindly “trust” what they hear. Like the saying–“You should believe a quarter of what you hear and half of what you see.” –Now, more than ever, when we have Fox and MSNBC, and most of the Internet, dedicated to misinformation and disinformation.

              When I was younger, people did trust Walter Cronkite to bring them objective reports. But that was before we knew that even the United States government lies to us. Personally, while I was against the Vietnam War, I thought–even then–that Cronkite made a major error in editorializing against it. Up to then, the only other time he showed his feelings was the day JFK died. I remember his having to take off his glasses to wipe away the tears–but he kept telling the details.

              As far as Rand goes, he just played the same media game. He gave them the theatre event, so that the “news” was that he wouldn’t answer the question–not a chance to HEAR his answer to the question. He became a Kardashian.

            • Goethe – some day you’re going to wake up and realize that the majority media is very liberal and Democrats biased !!! And they have been all the way back to Goldwater and maybe before. Understand almost all of them came from mainline education who is so liberal / Democrats / PC correctness biased that doesn’t reflect the general taxpaying public but all through school are taught liberal and Democrats ideology and then propagated by becoming teachers or media.

              Guthrie would never have come at a Democrat the agressive way she came at Paul for the “change mind” questions. She was actually more normal in the 1st part of the interview. and when Kelly interviewed him a couple days later she was harder on Paul than Guthrie but approached it differently.

              Quote me some things where FNC mistated or mis-quoted the facts – they may be conservative instead of liberal in their comments but factual. And they will cover and talk about the conservative aspect of events but MSNBC, CNN, alphabet radio/tv won’t touch the conservative side. And FNC can’t be accused of “knowing so very much that just isn’t so!” When Democrats are paired with Conservatives on FNC and after listening to Dems, you just think, “are you kidding me”. Which by the way is why the audience is 10X for FNC as MSNBC.

              Paul had been asked several times before about his thots on abortion. Even has a URL (that nate listed in an earlier comment) on it. But he prefers the Gov just stay of it.

            • Sam, Everybody thinks the other side is getting off easy. It’s just that Agnew was the first to spin it. People on the left are just as disgusted, if you ever heard them. I get sick of both sides saying “poor me.”

              One time, when I had cable, I flipped back and forth between CNN, MSNBC, and FOX to record how they were covering the same “news.” They were all bad and they were all wrong. But MSNBC and FOX would have a lot more credibility if they didn’t stack most of their schedule with blatant propaganda.

              There is absolutely nothing wrong with a reporter saying, “you previously said this, and now you say this.” They should do ten TIMES as much of that.

              Everybody hates to look stupid. So everybody hates questions that are hard to answer. Smart people know it’s coming and prepare for it. That’s why you so often hear them start with, “I’m glad you asked that question, so I can clear that up.”

              Instead, Rand shot the messenger, so instead of getting to hear his views, we just saw a tantrum. He became just another Kardashian.

              He’s much better than that. He has things to say–things that need to be said. His behavior shouldn’t end up being the story. I hope he prepares for the next interview.

            • Couldn’t help intervening…Rand just shoot another messenger. A lawyer for the Rand Paul campaign has sent a legal notice to TV stations that are running a hawkish attack ad based on Paul’s views on Iran. The ad is paid for by a Republican operative Rick Reed (FSPA). The letter from Paul advises television stations that they are “not protected from legal liability for airing a false and misleading advertisements sponsored by FSPA”and demands that they “immediately cease airing the Advertisement.”

            • The last paragraph of your article tells how this episode will play out. Facts are facts. By now, Rand should have learned from his father how to handle attacks from friend or foe. Never be a cry baby. Ron Paul never ask for quarter, he always found his opponents flaws, magnified them a million times, and returned the attack in a very vicious fashion without ever raising his voice.
              Ron Paul never earned my vote but he did earn my unqualified admiration.

            • The media is chasing H like she’s a celebrity, how fking ugly is that! They are acting like papparazzi. When H will be forced to start answering questions promulgated by GOP, the media will fawn all over her and shit on the GOP just like they have been doing for 60 years and especially the last 14 years. They will play the “1st WOMAN Pres” like a stuck feedback loop. They will try to destroy the GOPer just like the Low Info knew Palin’s name and that they weren’t supposed to like her and knew Obama’s name and that they were supposed to like him. They didn’t know McCain’s name or Biden’s name.

            • Dude. That’s the definition of “news”–man bites dog. They don’t report,”the bridge is still doing a good job of supporting cars going across.” The news is “bridge collapses.”

              Likewise, “you’ve always said the same thing” is not news, but a change on issues, is.

              Instead of blathering “poor me,” give me a specific example of an unfair question or interview, and we can discuss if and how it’s unfair. The recent Rand interviews were, as usual, not very smart, but were in no way unfair.

            • Goethe – not gonna go google and research examples of duo biased interviews. You give an instance where FNC gave incorrect or untrue facts on an event. If you can’t see the bias of MSM, then U b 1 of ’em !

            • Sam, as open and intelligent as you are in most ways, it always amazes me that you swallow such idiocy as “liberal media.”

              I don’t believe that any stray from objectivity is intentional. As I say, they are most interested in what’s exciting, not what’s intelligent–“if it bleeds, it leads.” They just want attention.

              But beyond that, there’s the fact that humans are different. We talked about the continuum of owner/manager to worker/consumer. There’s also a continuum of practical to idealistic. Some of us have to work our fingers to the bone to put food on our plate. Others have time to think about what’s “impractical.”

              Let’s make the continuum those who love money and those who disdain the love of money.

              Conservatives are usually involved with money–business people, investors, speculators, and such. For them, things have “value” if they can be sold for cash.

              But liberals have their heads in the clouds. They don’t think practically. They think it’s possible to “fix” people. They are actors, artists, teachers, and such. They obviously are not in it for the money. And that includes REPORTERS. Their job is not about money. If they wanted to make money, they’d gone into another line of business.

              So it’s not that reporters are liberals. It’s that liberals are more likely to BECOME reporters. But their ideal is still to be objective. They have no intention to slant anything. It’s just how they see the world. It’s totally unfair to say they mean to say things that sound liberal. If that’s how they sound, they know they have failed at their profession.

              More recently, more conservatives have become reporters. But they’re a hybrid, because they love money, and love people with money. Part of it is active and conscious recruitment. They are just as “biased” as liberals who become reporters, only you don’t recognize it, because they share your worldview, and so, you think they’re reporting the “truth.” But it’s only your truth. And you even think they’re being objective.

              There’s no such thing as pure objectivity–in any of us. It’s not possible. And if you can’t see errors and stupidity on both sides, you’re really not objective at all.

            • We’re not really disagreeing that much. You say reporters are liberals, I say liberals are more likely to become reporters.

              The only difference in what we are saying is that you think reporters are “terrible, horrible, no good, very bad” people who are intentionally out to get you.

              I say they’re human beings with their own politics and world view, who are often sloppy and lazy. If they are doing their job properly, liberals and conservatives will both think they are biased against them.

              AND–If you see a news report you think is “good,” you can be sure that it is biased in your direction.

            • GB, you’re giving reporters way too much credit in objectivity. They cannot hold it back when they are in the tank 100% for a candidate.

              It was so embarrassingly obvious with Obama.

            • No, actually, I said above that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any human being to be totally objective.

              The only question is whether reporters are horrible, scheming creatures who are out to destroy you.

              I don’t think they’re that smart. Every human being has his or her own worldview and opinions. If those feelings sneak out, I’m saying it’s a failure of their attempt to be professional–not some backroom scheme to be evil.

              I just don’t believe that reporters are evil. They’re just weak and/or stupid–like the rest of us.

            • I don’t think I ever said they are evil. I agree that most have IQ’s under 100 and if they do have a normal or better IQ then they are biased and push their ideology which is in sync with liberals who want socialism. I remember a song from 20 or so years ago that was pretty accurate called, “Dirty Laundry”.

              They have done their best to destroy every ‘Pub from Goldwater forward. Reagan was a problem cause he came from notoriety. They never vetted B.O. and as Nate said, now 9 years later, as much as he has done to make us a second rate country, and as much as he manipulates them, they still embellish and kowtow to him. If he were a Pub the media would have impeached him out of office.

              Whereas Clinton should be in jail for her shenanigans, and would be if she were a Pub, she will have all crap forgiven and the Media will award her with the 1st Woman Pres. It has already started – and the “Pit Bull” attitude towards the Pubs have already started.

              An email passed thru recently that describes how real conservatives (nothing about religion just morals) feel about Hillary in general:
              http://reusser.us/trickydick_ii.htm

            • The disagreement IS about evil–about ill intent. You continue to think they’re “out to get you,” and that’s nonsense.

              They try to be objective, and fail–because it is humanly impossible to be completely objective. And, again, if you ever see a “news” report you think was “done well,” it just means it has the same slanted view as you.

              I don’t watch TV, so I haven’t seen the media “chase” Hillary, but I heard a report on it. Not only is Hillary hiding so that she won’t have to answer questions–she has even set up fake meeting places so that the media will show up and she’s somewhere else. It’s a brilliant tactic, since now the “news” is that she’s “unavailable,” and like anything else we can’t have, WE WANT IT!

            • Goethe – down another rabbitt hole and I think we’ve been down this one before. While searching for something else a .pdf passed by titled MediaBias101.pdf (2012). Media Research Center (started by 2 conservatives many years ago) published this. it covers a lot of surveys, interviews, charts. Even objections from people like yourself which lead me to believe you are a closet MSM and do this comment blog as entertainment.
              The MSM isn’t evil, they just want their ideology enforced and the Democrats do that better than the GOP. Their “objectiveness” is well left of center and that is their center.
              If you are interested – their study:
              http://Reusser.US/mediabias.htm -or- http://Reusser.US/mediabias_.htm -or- just plain http://Reusser.US/mediabias101.pdf and can be saved if you like.

              Surfisher – don’t underestimate how much the Media will support H. – she has already been forgiven all her transgressions by the media, the GOPers in Congress don’t have enough nads to bring her up on charges and this Administration won’t touch it until after 2016 election. The “pit bulls” are already busy chasing the clusterfk GOP candidacies and will harass them until there is just H and one GOP. Then they will start H’s coronation and demeaning of the GOPer.

            • It still gets back to INTENT. You believe that they PLOT to tell you what you don’t want to hear.

              I believe that the majority of reporters TRY to be objective, and BELIEVE they are objective. They believe what they see is what “is.” They don’t understand that each of us sees things differently.

              I’ll take a look at the “study.” But the fact that ideologues do a study, and begin by admitting that they are not objective, and have something to “prove,” shows that they want to “enforce” THEIR “ideology.”

            • Dude. This is how your study beings:

              “Reporters should keep their personal opinions from influencing the news stories they write and produce. But journalists are only human.”

              That is exactly my point. Conservatives look for jobs to earn money. There is not much money or opportunity in news reporting. So conservatives are less likely to become reporters. AND “journalists are only human,” so even though they are trying to be objective, they are, in fact, instead, “human.”

              Also, if you’ll look at the study, it is based on 240 reporters who are WILLING to identify their politics. Wouldn’t you think reporters who ARE adamantly objective would simply refuse to answer that survey? And if someone has identified one’s self as having an opinion, wouldn’t you think they’d be more aware that they have to work to be objective?

              Forbes Magazine, a bulwark of capitalism, says that CNN is more objective than Fox–by 54% to 46%.

              http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/03/18/pew-study-finds-msnbc-the-most-opinionated-cable-news-channel-by-far/

            • The Forbes thing is two years old too. If you would have read it, it didn’t say exactly what you said – the chart says CNN reports news – opinion 54% to 46% and FNC 45% to 55% – But it didn’t say the idelogical leanings of the news reports.
              FNC has a bigger conservative audience and when they opinionate they are more conservative. Actually even when accurately reporting there can still be an idelogical tilt and the 60% of the public and I believe FNC is the most truthful in doing so even with their conservative bias.
              http://freebeacon.com/culture/poll-americans-trust-fox-news-more-than-msnbc/

              It appears CNN tries to spread it broadcasting out to attract more ideologies, but still leans left / Democrats no matter what they report.

              The article below lays out the conservatives first then migrates to the rest of the field and shows the migration from conservative to liberal
              http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/14/five-facts-about-fox-news/

              You can argue all you want – I’m exiting this rabbit hole, “that’s, that’s all folks” !!!

            • Replied to Sam but this is really to GB..

              Let’s just say we accept the premise that reporters are only human and can’t keep their biases from affecting their stories, interviews, etc… for the sake of discussion.

              Nearly 90% of donations given by TV news executives, reporters, and writers in 2008, went to Democrats.

              The other 10% went roughly to Republicans.

              If 90% of the people who produce, report, and write stories for major media can’t keep their personal bias out of their reporting, doesn’t that mean the bias coming out is overwhelmingly liberal, merely based on the stats that the people working these professions skew heavily left.

              Therefore.. even by your standard of “innocent human bias,” the media is heavily skewed using your own logic.

              http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/28/obama-democrats-got-88-percent-of-2008-contributions-by-tv-network-execs-writers-reporters/

              So, whether you think they do it actively or passively, there is no argument where the media skews and how they treat candidates based on their personal political beliefs.

            • Right. That is exactly my point. I think it’s probably true that most reporters have liberal sympathies–because conservatives typically don’t go for a profession that is not lucrative. And, being human, there will be times when they use a word or do a gesture that would flag that.

              BUT–on the other hand, if people KNOW they have a personal viewpoint, as reporters, they will try to be overly fair to the opposing position.

              I do NOT believe there is intentional bias, or some “vast leftwing conspiracy” to damage rightwingers. That is where Sam and I disagree.

              If you’re a “big boy,” you know, as JFK said, “life is not fair,” and you don’t cry when you perceive a slight–especially if you fantasize that Fox is “not” biased.

            • I think the objection is that, of the limited media some huge percent of the public is exposed to or pays attention to, the liberal bias makes a big difference.

              I can’t count the number of articles I read daily, from numerous perspectives. I know how to spot a reporter’s bias, and build that into reading a story. I read them all if it interests me. I read opinions I agree with and those I disagree with. But I can tell where everyone stands, often based on what outlet publishes the article.

              However, what if you read 1 news article a day, or 1 per week. Statistically, you’re going to get some built-in liberal bias merely by the odds we have established. You’re probably not savvy enough to even know what the other side may think on a particular issue if you’ve been delivered a slanted view.

              I think that is where the objection lies. That much of the public, who chooses to not be overly informed or pay much attention to current events, gets a limited, biased interpretation of those events they do happen to pay attention to.

              Again, whether it is intentional or merely coincidental is immaterial to the reality of the bias.

            • No, I think the point is–is it intentional? Since Agnew, the “common sense” has been that the media are “liberal.” So reporters feel that they have to prove otherwise, and anyone with a brain has heard the “liberal media” complaint and discount any glimpse of opinion.

              I answer with three things:

              (1) I don’t believe there is much bias in news. Editorials are a different matter. And here is certainly not a dearth of opinion stated today.

              The interviews of Rand Paul were PERFECTLY appropriate. If you don’t want to be asked questions, you don’t whore around the studios. If he had been smart, he would have used the opportunity to make news with his IDEAS, not his TEMPERAMENT.

              (2) As noted before, news reporting is a job YOU wouldn’t want. It leads nowhere and makes no money, unless one gets very lucky. So the people who become reporters don’t believe the way you do. And if their personal views come out, I’m sure they would consider it a failure. It’s not intentional.

              BUT LET’S THROW IN A NEW ANGLE:

              (3) News, by its very nature IS “liberal.” The essence of “news” is to report what is “new.” And the essence of news is to report what is “odd.” You know–“man bites dog.” But the essence of conservatism is valuing what is “old” and “venerated.” So it would be very hard to report on new things without seeming “liberal.”

              And, once again, I like Rand Paul, and I think he could make a great president–but he’s going to have to grow a thicker skin. RON Paul never, in all his years, threw a tantrum like that, and he was being attacked from EVERY side. Man-up Rand!

            • Aw Goethe, you ARE a liberal media just playin’ with the tourists on this set of commemt blogs. Ihope we provide you the fodder you need
              .
              Your thoughts are directly in line with an Alphabet media (Who?? Me?? Liberal?? No, No!!)
              I’m guessing one your editorials you will publish: { I am a Centrist, er, I mean Moderate. Big Gov and being nice to enemies will put this Colonialnistic U.S. where it should be in the world. And it is important to be P.C. & encouraging as many immigrants, both legal and illegal, to run here ASAP. And — IAW the 1st Amendment – do not try to assimulate, matter of fact, remain old country as long as you can. }

              Goethe, your center has about a 10º tilt (Liberal / Democrats) and your following need to get a Liberal-passthru filter. LiteWeight but effective.

            • I know the media because I’ve been involved with the media for decades, via advertising.

              I have said that more liberals tend to go into professions such as art, music, and news. And, being human, it’s inevitable that, at some point, they will honestly see things differently from you.

              There’s no plot against you. A truly objective report will be condemned by both sides. And, of course, if you hear a report you think is “fair and balanced,” it just means it’s tilted toward your view.

              As intelligent as you are in other ways, it amazes me that you fall for the “poor me” mentality, as well as Surfisher’s brainless hatred of a candidate (whom I don’t like, either). Hatred and name-calling do not contribute to thinking. Otherwise, you can contribute intelligence to a discussion.

            • Surfisher: You’re just upset because you blather subjective nonsense, and sometimes I provide objective proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  1. Sam Reusser — Hillary is done, finished, kaput!

    Why get excited by the liberal pukes here that say otherwise?

    Disregard the likes of Goethe, Tess, Swastika-boy (“progressive repub”), who can’t wait imagining for Hillary to get elected in order to FINISH DESTROYING America. These numbskulls live in La-la land, and their America-hating-liberal-dead-dogma days are OVER!

    Aside from the Clinton’s travesties of Whitewater, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Benghazi, Email-gate, even stealing furniture from the White House, lying about being broke and near penniless, Bill perjuring himself on Monica’s case thus getting impeached — just a few examples of the Clinton clan’s never-ending dirty laundry — now Newsweek reports even more damaging dirty laundry:

    *Hillary Clinton’s Big Benefactor Has Trade Links with Iran*

    http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/hillary-clinton-runs-white-house-and-row-over-ukrainian-benefactors-trade-322253.html

    No wonder Hillary is hiding and trying to be unseen, for any exposure will face her with the ugly truths that is Hillary Clinton — a cheat, a liar and bribe taker NOW!

Comments are closed.