CNN is “interviewing” all five remaining candidates. Below are my thoughts on each interview.
First up is Kasich and his “I’m an adult” shtick. Honestly, that act doesn’t play very well when he’s the only one in the room. Contrasted against the other two remaining Republicans, he does look very much like a levelheaded, mature candidate, but on his own, he comes across as curmudgeonly and unhappy. He also sounds the most like an “establishment” player, which in this election cycle is almost guaranteed to alienate the bulk of republican voters.
Next up, Ted Cruz.
Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Ted Cruz and actually asking some pretty good questions containing quotes, facts and figures. Unfortunately, Ted Cruz is doing his best to ignore every question by turning his answers into an attack on Obama, regardless of how tenuous and ethereal that mental road map might be.
Ah, and now as we reach the halfway mark of Ted’s interview, he’s begun trying to attack Trump. And he’s explaining how he and Marco haven’t spoken at all about joining forces. Rrrriiiiight.
Next up, Donald Trump.
Donald Trump confuses me. He is being given several opportunities to denounce racism, hate speech, bigotry and xenophobia by Wolf Blitzer and yet… and yet he never takes the opportunity to do so. He skirts the issue every time. The closest he has come has been to say he doesn’t want or need the KKKs support. But he doesn’t denounce them as a group.
Now he’s admitted he would open a hotel in Havana, Cuba even though the standard republican stance is that ending the embargo is “bad”.
And now, OMG, NOW he’s not-very-subtly pointing out that if he doesn’t get the nomination in November there MIGHT be riots. I mean, he wouldn’t condone it and he’s totally against riots, but he doesn’t have control over the people… sooooo…
Oh boy. And now he’s defending his use of uncouth verbiage as “showbusiness talk” that doesn’t matter. And his feud with Megyn Kelly is because she attacks him and she “deserves” to be attacked back. This makes me wonder how he’ll treat ANYONE who disagrees with him should he ever become president. How will he deal with the media, journalists, bloggers, late night talk show hosts, comedians, foreign dignitaries, or even barbers in a local barber shop?
Anywaste, next up, Hillary Clinton.
Hillary is way better in a one-on-one interview than she is at the debates. She appears more relaxed and personable, which is a marked difference from how I usually perceive her.
So far, Hillary’s answers to the questions she’s being asked have been actual answers without dodging or realigning them to standard stump speech talking points. But she has a major problem.
For example, she’s spoken in depth about her involvement with the talks between Palestine and Israel in 2010 and how she wants to work on a two-state solution and not fully back Israel only. It’s a nuanced stance that is important to understand, but I think that’s one of her real problems. She never seems to pick a side, or walk a straight path to an answer and the general public doesn’t see that as thoughtful and nuanced. They tend to see it as wishy-washy, or non-committal. And that’s a big deal.
Anderson Cooper just threw her a total softball question so she could explain what she meant when she said, “campaigning doesn’t come naturally” to her. Her answer was detailed and logical and humorous and absolutely rehearsed. It just helps illustrate how hard it is for her to relate to people in a warm and human way, which I believe is her biggest flaw as a candidate.
Next up, Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders’ first set of questions from Anderson Cooper is all about foreign affairs, which is in my opinion Bernie’s weakest subject. If only because of Hillary Clinton’s obvious foreign policy credentials. Unsurprisingly, he can quote facts and figures toe-to-toe with Hillary Clinton and Anderson Cooper, and his answers have a lot more to do with his moral judgement and past foresight as a Senator, and not any actual policies of bills he’s pushed forward.
In many ways, Bernie’s foreign policy plans seem eerily similar to Trump. When distilled to their most basic parts, they both seem to be isolationists who want to retreat from America’s traditional role of being a sort of “World Police Force” and instead rebuild the nation. Admittedly, Bernie seems to have real plans (even if those plans major budgetary issues) and Donald Trump seems to want to bring back the years of white power, women’s suffrage and minority oppression back which…. ugh.
And in the end, Bernie manages to work in his stump speech talking points to remind everyone how he’s different than Hillary Clinton WITHOUT going into the shaky specifics of funding or implementing said plans.
And that’s the end of this installment of “When the World Went Mad in 2016”. Have a good night!