1. She wants to hear more about the nominee before declaring a side. She then complains of partisan politics dividing this issue.
2. Asked about whether or not a vote should happen in an election year, she points out the lack of controversy over this issue in past years.
3. Will she endorse a candidate? She doesn't have one in mind, and the newscaster complains that she won't give a "yes or no answer" to a question designed to talk shit. Asked what it would take to make an endorsement, she instead endorses talking about issues instead of "making it a reality show", implying taking sides so early is childish compared to talking about issues instead of candidates.
This isn't dodging questions, this is dealing with newscasters with an agenda.
[editline]17th March 2016[/editline]
yes how dare she prefer actual political debate over partisan behaviour within the democratic party itself, what a dodger!!
Media trying to push a pro-Hillary agenda and Elizabeth trying to be above it, oh no she's dodging questions!
I suppose you could call it dodging questions, but it seems also like being provided a Yes/No question and then giving an essay answer in response because the question assumes a false dichotomy. Apparently newscasters are so used to politicians pushing for their own party's agenda that they find it inconceivable that a politician might actually give a shit about something other than partisan politics.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
