"Part of playing the political game is knowing the best way to get your message across," Landsbaum writes. "As such, Clinton should be recognized for her pragmatism rather than being pressured to perform based on standards that don't necessarily apply across the board."

AD

Um …

Her point is, in the broadest possible sense, true. A major part of politics — and life — is playing up your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses. If you have a strong drive to the hoop and a weaker jump shot, you try to put yourself in positions to drive a lot. You get the idea.

AD

Here's the fundamental problem with Landsbaum's 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. One of the most important things that this campaign can and should do is expose the American people to how each of the candidates thinks — not only in rehearsed settings such as the speech Clinton will give on foreign policy today in California but also in impromptu moments in which she is required to think on her feet.

AD

Again, Landsbaum:

Does she owe it to voters to be interrogated by the press? Sure. But it makes sense for Clinton to wait until after she's officially clinched the Democratic nomination (a task Bernie Sanders has made surprisingly difficult) to open herself up to further ridicule.

Two small points first: (1) "Interrogated"? No. Asked to be held to account for policies and statements she has made? Yes. (2) "Further ridicule"? Again, no. The media's job is to ask questions of candidates and, if/when they don't give real answers, to push again and again. If Clinton gives poor, incomplete or inaccurate responses — as she did in her statement on the State Department's inspector general report about her email server — then it is the media's job to call her on that. That's not called ridicule. It's called accountability.

AD

Now, the bigger point. It's exactly because she hasn't officially clinched the Democratic nomination that Clinton should have granted a news conference or two over the past six months. She has been in the midst of a struggle for the future direction of the Democratic Party with someone who alleges that she is both insufficiently loyal to core principles and a late arriver to policy positions. She also has been part of an ongoing FBI investigation of her controversial — to put it mildly — decision to exclusively use a private email server while serving as secretary of state.

For Democrats trying to assess Clinton's fitness for office, hearing her unvarnished thoughts about all of these topics and more is something they are owed, not something she can decide whether to give them. Judging Clinton only by the pre-packaged way in which her campaign chooses to present her is like going to a restaurant after seeing an ad for it and never looking at the Yelp reviews.

AD

It's easy to conflate feelings about the media with a politician's refusal to engage with said press. After Trump's anti-media screed Tuesday, many in conservative circles cheered the real estate mogul for calling out the "sleaze" media. But these same people insist that the media isn't doing its job in keeping Clinton accountable on her email, on the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, or on myriad other issues on which they think she would be found wanting under closer examination.

AD

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can hate the media — I know most people do — and still believe that Trump and Clinton submitting to free and open questioning from the media is fundamental to the health of our democracy.