Hillary Won’t Hold Press Conferences Because Media Is Sexist
By Daily Bell Staff - July 09, 2016

Decades-old pink sweater helps explain why Hillary Clinton really hates press conferences  …  Why is she so reluctant to stand in front of the assembled media and take questions?  The answer could have something to do with the very first news conference Clinton held as first lady in 1994, an event that became known as the “pink press conference” or the “pretty-in-pink press conference.” – National Post

The National Post has just explained why Hillary avoids press conference: The media discriminates against her because she is a woman.  Also: The Media “never lets go of a scandal.”

Reportedly, she’s not held one in 2016 and last held one on Dec. 4 2015.

She doesn’t like them. She avoids them. This perception apparently took hold after the so-called “pretty-in-pink” press conference.

The Pretty-in-Pink news conference was intended to address charges over a Clinton scandal involving a bankrupt housing development called Whitewater.

The results of the press conference included speculation on why she wore the sweater but didn’t do much to decrease interest in Whitewater. That seems have created a grudge that has lasted some 20 years.

The speculation surrounding the sweater was obvious: She was trying to soften her image as “co-president” by reminding the media she was in fact Bill Clinton’s wife.

For Hillary defenders, the lack of press conferences is part of a larger strategy of self-preservation.

The press is seen as invasive, and its questioning unfair and relentless.

More from the National Post:

Clearly Clinton does not appreciate reporters’ interest in how she dresses or, more broadly, their subjecting her to any scrutiny that a man in her position would not have to deal with.

During a news conference last March, she was asked whether she would face “all this fuss” about her private email usage, if she were a man. Clinton smiled, threw up her hands and said, “Well, I will leave that to others to answer.”

The article concludes that Clinton will have to have a press conference at some point but that she “it’s unlikely that she will ever warm up to these sessions. Given her history — or the way she seems to view her history, anyway — it’s not hard to figure out why.”

On the other hand, we have this from the Washington Post:

… Clinton has acknowledged in the past that she isn’t terribly comfortable speaking in public and, therefore, should avoid doing it.

… Here’s the fundamental problem with [the] argument: Clinton giving a news conference and allowing the media to ask her about anything isn’t a luxury item in a democracy. It’s a core principle.

Remember that the vote on Nov. 8 presumably will elect either Clinton or Donald Trump to the single most powerful office in the country and, maybe, the world.

… The idea that Clinton should continue to ignore the media because it’s good strategy is ludicrous. To be elected president of the United States, you must demonstrate the ability to field tough questions, to think on your feet and to deal with less-than-ideal situations.

One can certainly argue that the real reason Hillary doesn’t hold press conferences is because she’s told too many lies and doesn’t want to be confronted with them. But it’s convenient to blame her reluctance on a sexist, badgering press.

In the longer run it probably doesn’t matter if Clinton holds a conference or not.

Obama was accessible while running for office and even ran on the slogan “hope and change.”

But when one scrutinizes his record and what actually did change, it is fairly clear that most of the changes are cosmetic. Even his big accomplishment of furthering nationalizing health care can be seen in the context of a larger drift in that direction.

Like Bush before him, he hasn’t made any significant economic changes, nor has the US debt decreased, nor have its wars lessened. The nation remains on its present downward course.

That’s understandable given that the larger, elite plan seems to be to continue to weaken the US as part of a strategy to create increased global governance.

Conclusion: Elections in the US have little or no affect on the sociopolitical or economic structure of the country. This goes for Europe too. If changes come, they occur as the result of larger systemic influences that have little to do with the individual politician. Win or lose, if Hillary enters office, the results will be the same as before – only, given her background and psychopathology – much, much worse. Which is actually why her corporate, banking and military supporters are determined to elevate her.

Tagged with:
Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap