Video Of The Week: Kara Swisher Interviews Hillary Clinton
I posted an interview that Kara Swisher did with President Obama a few weeks ago. Shortly after that interview, Kara interviewed Hillary Clinton. Kara is on a roll. I hope she interviews Jeb Bush next.
In any case, it is great to see a tech journalist interviewing the major national political figures. There are a host of important national tech issues and it is great to be able to hear these politicians address them.
Sadly the email scandal broke about a week after this interview so Kara was not able to ask about that. But otherwise, this is a great discussion and, as I said, I hope she does more of this.
Hillary for president.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/… Stats say she will be the nominee
I am clearly not in favor of stats or analytics when it comes to polls. She is crafty,politically savvy and the big ticket to american democracy. The Bushes skewed america
Hah. If the Republicans nominate Bush, and the Democrats nominate Clinton, we shouldn’t use the words Democratic Republic. More like Oligarchy.
In a democracy the voters get what they deserve
In principle, I agree with you. But gerrymandering by both parties takes it to a different level. Remember, I am from Chicago. Elections are more like a coronation. Gerrymandering has made the parties more polarized.
i’ve written about that actually
Well look at the upside. Both Chicago and NYC are more corrupt than Philly is but they also are way more important than Philly is. No pain no gain. (Simplistic but I have to make the point that things not being entirely fair can sometimes also lead to good things happening as well.)Look my dad was shaken down (in a sense) by unions at the NY Coliseum. Probably in Philly as well or maybe building inspectors, etc. So you pay the vig but everyone else your competitors does as well. Doesn’t mean you like it but you focus on selling what you have not complaining about things. I’m sure it’s shit hard to construct a building in NYC with all that is involved there. Especially in the 70’s and 80’s. However people who weren’t all righteous liberal and naive and let it slide and focused on getting their property developed have been nicely rewarded.Think of it this way. You will never eliminate crime. You just want to keep it in check and not have it get to out of hand.
You can’t gerrymander a state or a country. But the Dems have an even better tool to tilt the electorate in their favor: importing future Democratic voters. They just effectively legalized millions of future Democrats, and enticed millions more to come for the next amnesty. And the GOP just rolled over for it.
Even after Citizens United?
yes, because they are the ones who pull the leversthe money is being spent to convince them to vote in certain ways, but they are the ones who actually vote
I’d like to believe that … but I’m not convinced that people ever operate as fully rational actors (perhaps too much time reading Kahneman and his ilk), and believe that we all can be easily and deceptively swayed against our best interests.In that sense, Citizens United only exacerbates the exploitation of a “flaw”(?) of human nature that’s been exploited over and over again by some politicians, religious leaders, and many others.The contrapositive argument is IF people voted their best interests and couldn’t in fact be swayed to vote against those interests, why does so much money continue to go into the political system?
i’ve been trying to fix this, not successfully so far http://recode.net/2014/08/0…
That’s fantastic…I’ve been hearing about this effort and, perhaps like Fox Mulder, I want to believe that it can and will make a difference (and will do what I can to help).Though perhaps the fact that Lessig even needs to do this in the first place speaks to the fact that many members of the voting public aren’t pulling the levers in voting booths without some “invisible hand” pointing which lever to pull?
Of course. People are rational or not rational in degrees and depending on the issue. Talk to an otherwise rational mother about something related to the health and safety of her child and she becomes very irrational. As only one example. She could be extremely logical in other areas.What money allows you to do is spend more brainwashing people to your point of view. Where all the sudden the message becomes reality to them. Just keep hammering it home.It also doesn’t help that the mass of people aren’t particularly critical or cynical in their thinking and that is exactly why they are the mass of people. They are less likely to question things. They will like a politician simply because of the way they sound or the way they communicate or look. (See Kennedy vs. Nixon, who won TV vs. who won radio in their debate).
for being so $media$ gulliblemedia-ecology should be a mandatory high school subject !
One of the toughest truths of our time. It is amazing how many good people and ideas I see beaten down not by the opposition but the apathy of their peers.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.- H.L. Mencken
The issue isn’t their last names, but that there’s so little daylight between them on the big issues.
Would have been great to interview her about all of her scandals-Benghazi included, her private email communication as a govt official, and the use of the Clinton Foundation for favoritism. Don’t ask her about cattle trading either! As a politician, she wouldn’t answer questions about that directly. When they do ask them questions about tech, you sometimes see their true colors come out. The interview you posted with Obama was very good at revealing the tension between knowing all, and privacy. Having her interview Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and Scott Walker to get their views on it would be interesting. Although, a view might change given the intelligence you get on a Federal level with regard to terrorist threats compared to the view you get while running a state.
All that stuff to me is good not bad. I like the fact that she takes risks and plays games. Nixon actually did some pretty good things but he got caught ironically (given today’s video) because he didn’t understand technology that well or have a skillset in that area. I could never be President but I could definitely handle a tape recorder, a coverup, or engineering a burglary. Or be naive enough to think and trust the Mafia helping get Castro.Guess what? We don’t need more book smart people or Harvard or Ivy League grads. (Unless they went to UofP in that case I will vote for them.)People here whine to much. Things are great in this country. For example, in Singapore they will cane American Citizens on certain crimes. As only one example of a country that is high tech but tough on crime (from what I read).http://travel.state.gov/con…Ha, and who can ever forget Turkish prisons and “Billy” from “Midnight Express”.
An NYT reader and upper west side resident’s take on Hillary’s emails:
Through it all, I”m a Hilary fan.Until the acerbic, partisan crap that typifies politics today finds someway to get over itself, whoever is elected will be a disappointment.
I don’t think any of those actions by Hillary are forced errors or spin.
She is, as my kids would say, a “badass”
She probably has the most experience or qualifications to come along in a long time and also contains the proper degree of sleaziness to actually get something done. She is a good player in a game that needs to be played.
This is – and it is not even close – your single best comment ever.Its the sleaze / practicality of her that put me off through her early political life.Now, she seems to have found her own voice or personal footing. I think she is a formidable candidate in ’16.
Can we put some Elizabeth Warren in her please? I hope she doesn’t do an early 08 and try to say nothing
I don’t get why people are so up on Elizabeth Warren. You can’t get agreement and win with other politicians by being right you do so by being able to play their game and cooperate and compromise with them. That’s why it’s politics. It’s not about the person who is smartest or has the best answers. It’s about the person who can get others to agree with them which often requires deal making and being a little bit slippery (but not a big bit slippery).
i don’t get it either
She is non threatening and the type of person who seems “nice” and “levelheaded” and that would make a good dinner guest or mother in law. And the fact that she is a Harvard prof. means people can check off “wow she must be smart”. She doesn’t seem like a politician but that’s actually her Achilles heal.Most (not all but most) hollywood leading men follow an almost similar pattern. They are not only liked by women but also liked by men. Because they are pleasing to the eye (important for men as well), seem non threatening (even with their big success), nice, and the type of guy that “isn’t a dick” and that you’d like to hang out with. In other words they aren’t Steve Jobs, they are Warren Buffett with good looks. Not that people wouldn’t hang out with Steve but you get the point. Most of the guys that you invest in seem to be like Hollywood leading men by the way (some w/o the looks, some with)
There are a large subset of voters that do not trust corporate america. Warren has skillfully exposed real issues inside the financial services sector and its relationship with mainstream America, and managed to do so in a way that taps into that feeling.
Which is the irony since a large subset of voters work for corporate america and are the type of people who do their own version of lame shitty things everyday to other people. Or do what is in their best interest in order to keep their job and not ruffle any feathers.
In many ways I think that reinforces those feelings. Some people feel stuck or trapped in jobs they dislike but need the income and end up doing things they don’t want to do. Then they feel resentful towards the system.
Well there are all sorts of reasons for this being the case (luck being one of them) but there is also the fact that people make choices without regard to practicality or the future. They make stupid decisions.Here is an example. My daughter has a job that she really loves and she is in NYC. I told her she has to go in and ask for a raise because she is not making enough to live in NYC. I gave her some suggestions and she kept telling me how she really likes working at this place (and she is doing well apparently) and I told her something that roughly translated to “that’s great but you also have to be able to earn a living if you are living anywhere, especially NYC”. So in other words money is an important thing to consider and you can’t just not include that in your thinking. You can’t say “I love art so I will be an artist” and then leave others to clean up the mess of you not making a living doing so. (My daughter does not do art obviously..)Now I know that excludes an entire bunch of people who, through certain circumstances, can’t raise above the level that they are at. But I also suspect that there are plenty of people who decide to do something where they can’t make a living (or party in high school or college or skip classes “haha”) and then come complaining afterwords that they are not able to find a job or a job good enough for the lifestyle that they want.Like Fred’s mother in law said:“Get an MBA from one of the top schools. With an engineering degree from MIT and and MBA from a top school, you can write your ticket”.So not everyone has Judy as a mother in law. And not everyone can get an MBA from Wharton either or go to MIT. But my guess is most people don’t have their nose to the grindstone either and are working at less than their potential. That’s not all bad it makes it easier for those that work hard.
Because it’s heartening to see a Native American succeed in politics.
From what I read that is hardly a fact and is actually potentially an embellishment or stretch or perhaps even a lie.
But someone has to set the table and decide on what’s for dinner
There are a host of important national tech issues and it is great to be able to hear these politicians address them.What they say now and what they do later  are two different things. And personally I don’t like the fact that people vote based on a single issue important to them. But I understand why and I’m not implying that’s what you are doing or suggesting that but you know people do that. And I’m not saying that someone needs to vote based on “what is good for everyone else or the entire country” either. Just that they have to consider the entire package and take some of the bad with the good. And what they are even able to do for that matter.
Very early in the curve. I think Jeb will flame out. Not an impressive orator and Hill would absolutely kill in a debate. Not sure who is a better GOP candidate, though. Walker too conservative to win, could be Rubio. Hill certainly has more experience than anyone else, but sadly money and spin talk…and loudly. Last election cycle led to a power shift to GOP but there’s a vacuum at the top.
“but there’s a vacuum at the top”they have problems at the bottom too 🙂
This is a good interview and hats off to Kara but Hillary is her same old self. She’s not a dumb woman but I think her time has passed. If you watched this week all the discussions on the Supreme Court decision on the internet, it was unbelievable that all the press and media regressed. What I do mean by that? Well everyone forgot that Healthcare. Gov needed a lot of code, so to change anything, need more code as it seems all are oblivious to the fact that the Affordable Care Act is run by the machines. This is why neither party can do much to fix it, they can’t get their heads around it, so we have folks who are confusing virtual and real world values. Here’s my opinion on that and sure Hillary is doing the same thing. The Supreme Court issue was discussed like a bunch of tech morons if you will.http://ducknetweb.blogspot….We do have to remember is was Hillary Clinton who hired Lois Quam from United Healthcare after the big SEC/DOJ derivatives case against the company and she opened the door to that company taking over HHS/CMS and more. I have a couple former CMS folks that have told me a lot so I don’t trust Hillary in all areas but do respect her of course. Most folks have no clue on how United Healthcare rules the government as they used Untied models for years when they couldn’t build their own. Look at the groves of subsidiaries of United..most are so bliss and the company makes 1/3 of their money with software and analytics these days.Like I said, I like Kara but Hillary’s time is behind her at this point. Again, the big issue out there today and you see this in Congress and even in the White House, the confusion of people not being able to separate virtual world values from the real world, this is the huge issue. I felt pretty good about the post as even Cher came out of the blue on Twitter and agreed with me..true story.http://ducknetweb.blogspot….We are under the Attack of the Killer Algorithms out there today where some have moved from being a utility to being a menace. I used to write code so I know very well how folks can and do cheat with risk fiddling and just flat out cheating code that’s compiled and nobody gets to see. Hillary can’t do a thing about that and that’s what we need in office for the future. Most of everyone else out there too can’t do anything and one tool we are really missing is the Office of Technology Assessment for Congress as they are falling hard and looking foolish today with their perceptions of how things work.http://ducknetweb.blogspot….I called these strange perceptions “The Sebelius Syndrome” and it lives all over the place, White House too. I see the White House email bot template coming out with numbers that nobody can predict and again it takes me back to an administration of a bunch of folks confused with virtual and real world values.There is one silver lining and it took 6 years to get someone smart in the White House Cabinet and that is Ashton Carter. He’s grounded, background in physics and years ago he worked for the Office of Technology Assessment so he knows what it is like to help a “digital illiterate” Congress and knows how to do it. Seriously all the talk doesn’t do much with changing some algorithms as that’s what’s ruling out there..Killer Algorithms. There’s a lot of smart people I curated with videos at the Killer Algorithms page and it makes much more sense than more chat with folks who don’t understand how technolgoy works today. Again, great interview and hats off to Kara, but Hillary’s time has passed.I see Elizabeth Warren mentioned here too and yes we need more like her but I have also written to her office on technology as well and have received a couple answers and do see her office from time to time reading me in my stats. At one point I said Glass Steagall is better that nothing of course but it’s still only going after low hanging fruit. Warren has the smarts and inroads to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency which Hillary does not. We suffer with a very weak Richard Cordray running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as again no data mechanics logic and I still think the banks all give their approvals to Obama to hire him (grin).You can book mark this page if you want but it gets quite a few readers and have had some nice comments from Ed Frenkel, mathematician at Berkley as well, specifically referencing the Jaron Lanier video. This is the truth and the candidates make for entertaining media and or not bad people but they are not what we need.http://www.ducknet.net/atta…Again I used to be a data base person and it’s my data mechanics logic that carries me through on my thoughts here and so far I seem to be on target and don’t call myself any type of expert by any means, but when you have seen cheating code in real life, you certainly know there’s tons more of it out there, so don’t be bliss on the fact that everyone writes clean code, when money is at the base.
Kara Swisher is one of the most talented interviewers of our time. Watching her sit down with anyone is a treat, and someone as brilliant as Hillary was even more so.
Not to take anything away from Kara or other journalists but it’s kind of an ivory tower. They can highlight issues but not have to do any actual heavy lifting or deal with the practical side of actually getting things done. So it’s ideas, not execution.
.The next Presidential election is going to be decided in a framework that is not yet set but it likely being formed right now. I think it will be about foreign affairs and the economy.One only has to look at the last election in which the President inartfully suggested that his policies were on the ballot thereby dooming a bunch of borderline candidates.It was clear that the Senate was delivered into Republican hands by an electorate that didn’t like Obamacare and that Democrat candidates couldn’t run far and fast enough away from it.Remember that only a third of the Senate was up for election and the Democrats lost all but one pivotal race — winning New Hampshire in the face of an obvious carpetbagger in Scott Brown. All the other races, they won.Here’s the big point — if the Republicans perform as well again, they end up with a veto proof majority in the Senate and the House.It really won’t make any difference who the President is — well, other than running the country — the Republican Congress will be able to legislate and overcome a veto in their sleep.I would put the likelihood of this happening as very high.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…
Amazing command of her experiences, the issues, and a passion to make the world a better place. True She-ro! Thank you Hillary Clinton! Women 2016! Hillary 2016! #LeadOn
Loved the reference to energy efficiency as a growth opportunity.The trouble is if you ask encumbent holders of power (literally) to initiate necessary changes – you may find there is a pushback to overcome.
i reject liberalism and conservatism and all orthodoxyi am a member of the far center party and a pragmatist and a realist
as we’ve discussed here at AVC before, i engage in political giving and believe it is my obligation to play the game the way it is being played i do not engage in bundling however and i have also given a lot of money to campaign finance reform over the years including this failed effort http://recode.net/2014/08/0…
I think according to the emails the effort hasn’t failed – it has just yet to be successful 🙂
You’re a social liberal. That’s your orthodoxy. A centrist and a pragmatist might have voted for Romney in ’12, but you didn’t because you were concerned that the former governor of the most liberal state in the country might nominate insufficiently liberal candidates to the supreme court.
and all orthodoxyReligion like that is always fucked up and stuck in centuries old brainwashing. It’s really sad. It actually took me some time to eat on Yom Kippur and not fast. Was difficult but I finally pulled it off. All those middle east problems? All religion. Abortion issues? All religion.Today I went to buy a camera from BHphoto.com which is run by orthodox jews. They actually won’t take your credit card on shabbas. I knew the store was closed but I guess I assumed the website was open. My dad had a great deal of dealings with the Orthodox. They will cut your balls off. (In other words, not “a little sleezy”).Screen grab attached. Click to enlarge.
I believe in a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage, legalized recreational drugs, identity checks for gun purchases, and a bunch of other things that social conservatives don’t support. But I am anti labor, anti big budgets, anti regulations for the most part all of which liberals disagree with me on. I would have voted for Romney over most liberals. But not Obama because he has proven to be a centrist which has been a big disappointment to the liberals