As mentioned, she's been on C-SPAN quite a lot, so how could she possibly claim that the presence of cameras would "inhibit her from freely expressing herself"?

This seemingly indicates that when she does appear in front of cameras, she's spewing pre-digested crap rather than giving us her actual analysis.

Now, I recognize that appearing before a camera is a bit different from appearing before a small group. For one, the audience on the other side of the camera isn't there to give you feedback. I can ask a person sitting in front of me if what I am saying is making sense, see their facial expressions, and get feedback as to how what I am saying is being received. You can't do that if the audience isn't there.

But how does that lead to being "inhibited" when on camera? Sure, you'll choose your words more carefully since you don't have the ability to correct misunderstandings right there and then, but that is a question of taking care of your speaking, not "inhibiting" it.

The only thing that claiming you're "inhibited from freely expressing yourself" if you're put in front of a camera proves is that you hold some ideas you'd rather people in general didn't know about and don't want to be held accountable for.

Re: Why would cameras inhibit her?

Go ask W. and his brain Rove--Bush has held the fewest presidential news conferences in modern history,