Hillary Clinton hasn’t answered a question from the media in 20 days

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 11:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Washington Post: Hillary Clinton hasn’t answered a question from the media in 20 days

Welcome to day 29 of the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign!

In those 29 days – including April 12, the day she announced, and today – Clinton has taken a total of eight questions from the press. That breaks out to roughly one question every 3.6 days. Of late, she's taken even fewer questions than that. According to media reports, the last day Clinton answered a question was April 21 in New Hampshire; that means that she hasn't taken a question from the media in 20 straight days.

...

The Clinton campaign's response to all of this? Blah. Reporters whining – like they always do. And, as every Clinton staffer is quick to note, she has answered questions from lots of regular people during her first month as a candidate – holding roundtables in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. They are also quick to note that she makes opening statements at these roundtables.

...

While answering questions from hand-picked audience members is not without value, no one could possibly think it is the equivalent of answering questions from the working press.

'nuff said.

UPDATE: Take the poll, here.

[DURHAM D]

1. Good for her.

[NYtoBush-Drop Dead]

107. ditto!

[sabrina 1]

151. Not really good for a candidate to not be willing to state where they stand on

major issues. It IS a campaign no? That's when candidates asking for our support generally tells where they stand on issues that are important to us.

When they are silent, we listen to those who ARE telling us where they stand and wonder why a candidate would be reluctant to do so.

[JaneyVee]

157. Yes its a campaign...19 months away. And if Hillary was...

All over the press everyone here would complain about "media in the tank for Hillary!", and "I've got Clinton fatigue!"

Puhleeze.

[sabrina 1]

170. She doesn't have to be all over the media. She simply has to tell us where she stands

on issues like the Chained CPI eg We know where Bernie stands. And where she stands on the TPP, we know where Bernie stands. Or where she stands on a National HC system, we know where Bernie stands.

The perception is that she 'is waiting to see' where she stands, and that is not a good position to be in especially when there is a candidate who knows exactly where he stand and isn't shy about saying so. The contrast is stark frankly.

[JaneyVee]

173. One thing she knows about perception is...

Everyone hates and complains about long election seasons and the bombardment of ads and negative ads and the whole politics of it all. I think she is actually doing good staying low key and not shoving herself down everyone's throat. She will have plenty of time in the spotlight over the next 19 months. Its not as if she could dodge the media for an entire campaign and expect to march into the white house without being called out on it.

[Scuba]

186. Then why did she announce so early?

[sabrina 1]

198. Campaigns are too log in this country. She should not have declared her

intentions until she was ready to speak about where she stands on important issues. Had she not, other candidates would have waited also.

[MaggieD]

249. Look at her voting record

Fuck the media - bunch of corporate stooges.

[yeoman6987]

166. Yep! Talk with the voters

Who cares about the media. You speak directly to the voters and you will be better off.

[rhett o rick]

252. I see the logic. The less she exposes herself, the less chance of revealing that she

isn't the Populist candidate. She supports social issues but think Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street should rule.

There are two sides to the class war. It's not rocket science. If you support Wall Street, you can't pretend to support the 99%.

[NuclearDem]

2. If the reverse were true, people would be screaming about how the media favors her.

Oh well, damned if you do.

[SidDithers]

59. "She's trying to steal Bernie's thunder!!1! She's distracting everyone from Bernie!!111;!!!"...

WARAARGLE BARGBLE!!

Sid

[Cali_Democrat]

3. I thought they're just a bunch of corporate mouthpieces anyways?

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 10:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Why take questions from the media?

It's better to bypass them and go right to the people.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Particularly the hand-picked people

They're the best.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. I would rather see her answer questions form regular people than Chuck Todd

The media has no real interest in the issues.

[FlatBaroque]

28. The media has no real interest in the issues.

Interesting.

[cheapdate]

82. Would you dispute that?

Here's a sampling of today's top political stories from the nation's major news outlets:

"In what has become something of a pattern, a journalist has apologized to Sen. Ted Cruz for comments or questions that have appeared to measure how Latino he really is and have been derided as discriminatory." Fox News. 5/11/15

"Even if Bill Clinton won't be on the campaign trail in 2015, he'll still be one of the world's most recognizable political figures and a magnet for media coverage wherever he goes." NBC News. 5/11/15

"What do young voters want in a presidential candidate this election? Trust, leadership, an evolving foreign policy stance, someone who reaffirms faith in the criminal justice system and more..." ABC News. 5/11/15

"A CBS News/New York Times poll released last week found that both her favorability ratings and the percent of people who see her as a strong leader have jumped in the month since questions about the Clinton Foundation began mounting." CBS News. 5/11/15

And so on, and so on. In general, the major media is primarily interested in the horse race, the strategy (real or imagined), scandal, he-said-she-said, etc.

I don't listen to the crap anymore. I can't. It's a waste of time. There are other, better ways to find out what's important to know about where the candidates stand on actual policy questions.

[JDPriestly]

87. Have you seen her answering questions from regular people?

I haven't.

I am in California. We don't get much of a view of the candidates during the primary period. We rely on the media. She is ignoring most of the country with this strategy.

[840high]

110. I would rather see her

answer questions. Period.

[morningfog]

134. Hell yeah! Put your issues an positions right on the website!

Right there for the people to see! No corporate media filter.

Link?

[treestar]

191. LOL you nailed it!!!

[woo me with science]

4. K&R How sick is that.

What a sick indictment of our politics and media, and of the dismantling of our democratic political process through corporatism. How appalling not only that the ostensible "front-runner" on the Democratic side avoids even mentioning or taking a side on the most important political issues of our time, but that our complicit corporate media pretends that the utter vapidity of this campaign is the most natural thing in the world.

This vapidity is how we are being retaught democracy....taught a weird, perverted corporate version of faux-democracy in which elections are a vapid personality contest and citizens have no expectation that candidates will even try to represent their interests.

Such contempt for voters and for the very concept of a representative political system. This is the corruption and arrogance of oligarchy.

[Ron Green]

6. .

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. +1. Pretty sick. But some of us have come to think it's healthy.

No... I can't explain it.

[woo me with science]

13. Propaganda.

States that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines.

Part of the job of propagandists is to normalize the unconscionable. That's why the flood of absurd comments by ostensibly intelligent personas, claiming total satisfaction with predatory policies or with a "political" process in which corporate politicians don't even bother to pretend that they have a responsibility to tell voters what they stand for.

Corporatists don't represent. They manipulate. We live in a vile, magnificently funded propaganda state now.

[FlatBaroque]

31. Makes the internet a sad, sad place.

Thank you for your tireless truth-telling.

[guillaumeb]

42. But we DO have a choice of hundreds of types of cereal to eat.

And hundreds of cable channels endlessly repeating the same reruns from the 1960s. And THAT is on the news channels.

ISIS has replaced Vietnam, with the endless parade of victories and counts of enemy dead.

[misterhighwasted]

16. Its not "contempt of the voters." It is contempt of the RW owned MSM.

They deserve to be shut out of the game.

[woo me with science]

24. What utter nonsense. As insulting as "War is Peace."

In order for that talking point to have merit, Hillary would need to be working around the media in order to make her positions clear to voters. Trying to ensure a representative process of making her positions clear and communicating with voters about them *despite* a corrupt media.

She is doing exactly the opposite.

She is refusing to take positions on issues and using the corrupt media to protect her refusal. She is producing vapid, shiny corporate advertisements instead of even trying to explain her positions on issues to voters.

That her mouthpieces would even *attempt* to normalize that kind of behavior from candidates for the presidency in the United States of America only illustrates how deeply perverse and manipulative corporate messaging to Americans about their own democratic system has become.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. So now you suddenly have love for the corporate-controlled MSM?

The same folks who are doing all they can to marginalize Bernie sanders and elevate Ted Cruz?

Too funny.

Hillary is right to ignore those clowns.

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. I know, huh? ...

Folks are twisting themselves into nots ("k" intentionally excluded).

[sheshe2]

145. ^^^^This^^^^

Love ya!

This place

[treestar]

192. The hypocrisy stands out so much

that it's almost Republican in nature!

[misterhighwasted]

84. Lol. Seems to bother the anti-Hillarys far more than those who

..support her. Her supporters know why she doesn't address the MSM nor the mouthpieces who demand her to "SAY SOMETHING DAMMIT!!".

I'd be silently flipping y'all off too & going about the business of running my very successful campaign.

Mouthpieces is right. You said it.
Thanks.

[sheshe2]

148. Could you provide some blue links on this?

Thank you in advance.

[giftedgirl77]

202. Lulz

[tularetom]

27. "Vapidity" - what an apt descriptor of our substance free political process

The Clintons along with their counterparts across the aisle have turned vapidity into an art form.

[zeemike]

104. +1

And some fall for the personality because TV has taught them to.
We are a sick bunch of puppies...in the social sense.

[woolldog]

8. Why should she????

She needs to save it for the general election. The less she says now the better, and the more flexibility she has to adopt positions that appeal to the broader electorate in the GE.

[onecaliberal]

35. Adopt positions? Does she stand for anything?

Or is it all poll tested for the moment, forget about it once you're in office. Geez.

[Marr]

48. No kidding-- people describe the problem and then cheer for it.

That's exactly what that means. She's leaving room to adopt whatever rhetorical ad campaign seems most advantageous at the time. It's clear enough what she actually stands for; 'whatever my sponsors want'.

[L0oniX]

56. You'll never see that from Bernie.

[L0oniX]

54. ^^^this^^^

[MissDeeds]

77. Spot on

See how it's polling before having an opinion or a position on an issue. True leadership there.

[MannyGoldstein]

81. "Adopting" "positions" is for "Purists" nt

[Buns_of_Fire]

105. Absolutely! She firmly believes that she should be elected President!

Oh, you mean like about issues 'n' stuff?

Damn, she thought, shaking her head. Tough crowd...

[DJ13]

138. I misread your post title

I thought it said "adopt prostitutes", and was about to say "it looks like Hillary is FINALLY standing for something"!


Note to self, use your glasses.

[bunnies]

43. This. Right here. Is why people HATE politicians.

And politics in general. Its disgusting.

[sheshe2]

49. I promise!

I won't touch the pancake.

[bunnies]

53. ...

Ive already told you once.

[sheshe2]

62. Lol~

I am a quick study.

Sooooo~

[bunnies]

69. OMG. Thats my new favorite thing.

Also. I love a runny egg. mmmmm. breakfast.

[treestar]

193. Because they want to represent the People and not

the individual, that is, you?

[bunnies]

209. Avoiding issues is representing the people?

Interesting take.

[arikara]

100. Shouldn't she have her positions adopted by now?

I doubt she cares what the broader electorate want.

[Buzz Clik]

125. And we know damned well that if she were making the rounds on Sunday mornings...

... they'd say she's a camera hog.

[morningfog]

136. Thanks for being candid. Lol.

[woo me with science]

189. Why participate in a representative process?

Why talk to voters?

Why NOT oligarchy?!

Yup. That's our Third Way. Democracy schmemocracy!

[wyldwolf]

9. K&R for her not playing their 'gotcha' game.

you once said you loved the idea of labeling them the 'radical conservative media.'

[wyldwolf]

254. She should just avoid questions by insulting them...

...like your hero Alan Grayson.

[misterhighwasted]

11. Why would it matter if she did? Be sure MSM would rearrange her words & intentions as usual.

She should ignore the MSM as Pres Obama ignores Faux News.
She says what she needs to at this early point in her campaign, and she says it to those who matter, also at this point.
I have faith in her excellant campaign team of strategists to play this campaign game by their own professional rules.
Not the demands of the MSM, on behalf of ratings.
In my opinion.
Thanks

[bvar22]

242. This is how President Obama "ignores" Fox News:

[misterhighwasted]

253. Lol. Exactly.

[NanceGreggs]

12. OMG! OMG! OMG!

Thanks for alerting the Hair-on-Fire Brigade! They've been waiting for something to kvetch about - and I knew you wouldn't disappoint in coming up with something THIS IMPORTANT!!!

So the woman who has been living in a fishbowl and answering questions from the media since becoming First Lady of Arkansas, to becoming First Lady of a nation, to being a Senator, to being Secretary of State, has gone a WHOLE TWENTY DAYS without taking a question from the media!

OMG, OMG, OMG!!! What is she trying to hide? What nefarious democracy-killing plot is she up to?

Inquiring minds NEED TO KNOW!!!

I'll give you credit for one thing, Manny: your OPs are becoming even more irrelevant than supermarket tabloid headlines - and THAT is a pretty low bar to be able to limbo under.

[Action_Patrol]

15. "Becoming"? I thought that was his goal.

[NanceGreggs]

19. I was trying to be ...

... retrospectively kind.

But you're right - the agenda has not changed, nor has the goal in promoting that agenda.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. You know, I only write OPs so

you can write long posts about how nobody cares.

[NanceGreggs]

22. Oh, there, there, Manny ...

There are all kinds of people here who "care" about what you have to say.

That doesn't make their "concern" any more relevant than your OPs.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Thank "Goddess" for "quote marks"

and for my "irrelevance" being so relevant to you.

[NanceGreggs]

39. So your best defence of your ...

... Hair-on-Fire screeds comes down to my use of "quote marks".

Your irrelevance is not in the least relevant to me. I was merely making an observation about the bleedin' obvious.

[MannyGoldstein]

88. So you're spraying DU with posts regarding something irrelevant to you.

Hmm...

[NanceGreggs]

98. Responding to your OP ...

... constitutes "spraying DU with posts"?

The appropriate response seems to be

If you don't want people to reply to your OPs, the best course of action would seem to be to NOT post them in the first place.

I realize you only want to the "oh, Manny, you are so clever" responses - but it's the nature of a message board that you're going to get responses from people who recognize you're not nearly as clever as you think you are, or want to be.

Maybe you should just put all the "Manny naysayers" on Ignore, lest your sensibilities be affronted by those who disagree with your view of the world - something you seem to have a problem dealing with.

[MannyGoldstein]

108. That's your seventh post regarding an irrelevant poster

on this thread alone.

I must be terrifyingly irrelevant.

[840high]

111. Heehee - you beat me to it. Go Manny!

[MannyGoldstein]

139. Great minds think alike!

Also you and me!

[NanceGreggs]

114. I guess I'm just so terrified ...

... of Day 21!!! of Hill not answering the media's questions, I am losing all sense of perspective.

BTW, responding to irrelevance in no way makes it relevant. It's just that when the fish are confined to the barrel, some of us can't resist the temptation to shoot.

If you want to stop being called-out for irrelevance, you might want to think about not being so irrelevant. It's really a problem that solves itself.

[MannyGoldstein]

119. #9!

I must be weapons-grade irrelevant!

[MannyGoldstein]

123. You have the time to write 10 posts regarding an irrelevant poster?

I can only dream of the treatment you give to relevant folks!

[NanceGreggs]

126. "Irrelevance" deserves it's own moment in the spotlight ...

... and only the irrelevant think the attention somehow makes them relevant.

[polly7]

130. Don't you get tired of insulting people?

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[QC]

131. Never. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

135. They're not *insults*

just *observations*.

Got it?

[zappaman]

167. I agree.

Observations for the observant.

[polly7]

241. LOL. Got it.

[morningfog]

141. It's her hobby.

[morningfog]

156. Don't wait for an answer. Nance got a timeout.

[SMC22307]

174. She's on timeout... again.. At least those of us...

tired of her insults get a little break.

[one_voice]

158. Just going on record here that I think...

post #122 was a bogus hide.

There was another alert that was also hidden that was an even dumber hide. DU is going to lose quality posters over these dumb cliques.

[treestar]

196. I agree; that post was no different from anything else in the thread. nt

[hrmjustin]

226. I think it was a horrible hide as well.

Nance is a great poster and it sucks she can't post for awhile.

[hrmjustin]

223. Thinking of you Nance!

Hugs to you.

[Marr]

232. Your language makes me think you're jealous.

You sneer about others being 'relevant' or 'getting the spotlight' an awful lot.

[cherokeeprogressive]

127. When did shooting fish in a barrel become something people bragged about?

[sheshe2]

155. Oh, least we forget 22 posts~

[MannyGoldstein]

159. What does that "sentence" even mean?

Are you OK?

[sheshe2]

160. K~

selective memories.

[MannyGoldstein]

165. It's not even an English sentence.

(Why do I bother.)

In any case, this is my last post to you for the night, lest you again accuse me of stalking you or any of the other uncivil nonsense you regularly spew in my direction while screaming of your victimhood.

[sheshe2]

180. You asked me a question and I answered it on your thread.

So this is what you post.

(Why do I bother.)

In any case, this is my last post to you for the night, lest you again accuse me of stalking you or any of the other uncivil nonsense you regularly spew in my direction while screaming of your victimhood.

Yet you refer to this. A post about Ferguson...and here you ask me about TPP. On a Ferguson post!?

Are you ready to answer the scary question yet?

You know, whether your in favor of the TPP?

Ya don't like the word stalking? How about harassment. Trust me I can find more posts.

Or will you continue to not answer that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025421082

Here is another on Ferguson....and your comments

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026074280#top

You were the first poster there with TPP

A week after my dad died, and my brother in law a few days later you asked about TPP again. You knew my dad died yet again you asked me about TPP. When I called you on it you said, ya but I posted on his memorial thread. You deleted that post.

Stop trying to mess with me Manny. Stop making shit up.

[woo me with science]

200. [phone]

[cherokeeprogressive]

128. "people who recognize..." needs to be edited to read "people who erroneously believe".

That would fix your post quite nicely.

[MadDAsHell]

132. "" I realize you only want to the "oh, Manny, you are so clever" responses -"

Wow. Kettle, meet Pot.

[Alittleliberal]

115. Laughed out loud

[L0oniX]

217. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

[marym625]

204. This entire subthread deserves an

Oy gevalt!

I usually stay out of this nonsense from people who only want to post about the poster. That follow you around to say the same damn thing over and over and over again. But your importance to them is so obvious it's noteworthy.

You can't even post an article by someone else without the "Manny = BAD! Third way= GOOD! " brigade following you around.

Keep up the good work, Three Way Manny.

[sheshe2]

25. I need my smelling salts, please pass them to me, Nance.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. There is a living breathing human being at the other end of your keyboard.

Quick, read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026464088

[OilemFirchen]

36. Prove it.

[sheshe2]

47. Yes, you are correct. I wrote that.

Yet I am not the one who was rude to OS. Yes, he confided in me. I knew that he was dying. I am not the one that is alert stalking, there are others here that are. I am not the anonymous jury member that calls a member a bitch and one of the worst bullies on DU.

So Manny maybe you should read it again. I was talking about unreasonable cruelty to a member for no other reason than hate. I was never talking about politics.

I am not talking politics here, we have our rowdy discussions and disagreements. I am talking about taking a pass on an Op where someone is hurting if you feel the need to only be hurtful and cruel.

I made that Op about Omaha Steve. I did it without mentioning his name because he asked me to not tell anyone he is dying. He wanted to do it in his own time. Well, he did it yesterday.

I was talking about several facets of DU. No feel good thread is untouched here.

Talk about cruel, it is jumping on a thread about Obama and children and doing ones best to run it into the ground. 22 plus posts. A hide. Called a bitch by jury. That is what I was talking about.

[NanceGreggs]

44. The faintin' couch is available, sheshe ...

I only hope you get there before it's too full to accommodate you.

Just clutch your pearls in the interim - and hang on until professional help arrives.

We'll probably be hearing tomorrow about how HRC hasn't taken a question from the media in '21 Days!!!

In fact, FOX-News probably has a countdown clock on display, so we don't have to rely on Manny as the only source of this late-breaking news.

[FlatBaroque]

41. I find the OP quite relevant

especially in view of the impending TPA vote, with no word from Sec. Clinton on her position on the most contentious issue facing the Dem party. So, yes the OP is quite relevant. I am relieved that you are not the arbiter of what is relevant for discussion.

[NanceGreggs]

58. As I am relieved ...

... that Manny G is on the case, his irrelevance notwithstanding.

As as I am over 20 whole days without a media question being answered by HRC, I am trying to steel myself for Day 21. THAT will undoubtedly be the breaking point.

I just hope I can remember whether I am supposed to set my hair on fire or declare the death of democracy we know it come tomorrow - but I'm sure Manny will let us all know what to do.

[OilemFirchen]

64. I think he might have to rub an elbow first.

But he'll come through.

[840high]

112. As do many, many of us.

[woo me with science]

201. [phone] Of course the OP is relevant.

Terrifyingly so to our familiar group of pro-corporate posters.

[font size=4]The intensity of the swarm and diversion is directly proportional to perceived accuracy and dangerousness of the message being swarmed and diverted from.[/font size]

Corporatism perverts democracy. Manny is calling out the manipulation of voters by a corporate candidate who has no interest in actually participating in a representative political process. Of course the messaging brigade doesn't like that.

[L0oniX]

52. *

[Autumn]

137. OMG I knew this woman who could suck down a box of cheap wine in nothing flat.

Her eyes were fucking scary too.

[QC]

153. I think I know her too! n/t

[Autumn]

161. She always thought her glamour shots were her signature feature, but you can't hide crazy

or drunk eyes. It became very sad.

[leftofcool]

95. Good one Nance!

[Logical]

163. Lol, this irrelevant post has 55 recs and annoyed you! Nt

[840high]

222. 69 recs

[grasswire]

185. but you just keep clicking on Manny's OPs

Irrelevant? Or irresistable?

[Scuba]

187. So why did she announce her candidacy so early?

[woo me with science]

190. Wow.

I guess it's a tactic of propaganda, when trying to normalize the outrageous and unconscionable, to go all out in pretending they are normal, no matter how sick a perversion of democracy they actually are.

And I guess a tactic to do that is to make your attack emotional and vitriolic, in order to turn the whole conversation emotional rather than rational.

Because arguing with a straight face that shiny, vapid corporate commercials are an acceptable replacement for taking actual stands on issues in a representative political system....Well, that's not a position that can be defended rationally by those who claim to care about democratic government.

What a telling spectacle this swarm is. Always the same few. Always the same tactics.

War is Peace.

[L0oniX]

214. +1

[Beacool]

229. When you're grasping at straws you reduce yourself to petty comments about inanities.

The funny thing is that these are the types of posts that are on RW sites. The latest one I read of a similar nature was the "horror" of the possibility of Chelsea performing some of the traditional first lady duties, if Hillary became president. Bill would probably be too busy with his foundation and Hillary wouldn't have the time either, duties such as planning State dinners.

[Capt. Obvious]

237. I hope you enjoy your break from DU

[Thinkingabout]

14. This is Hillary's campaign, she has a staff, and they will run the campaign as they

Have planned. She hasn't hogged up the talk shows and has allowed those with less campaign funds to go the talk show route. She is getting her message out. I hope I am able to attend one of her meetings when she comes to my town.

Oh, BTW, Bernie can run his campaign the way he pleases also.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. This is America, and we are free. nt

[Thinkingabout]

20. Exactly.

[morningfog]

162. How magnanimous of her to allow another her airtime.

[Thinkingabout]

175. I have made note of your complement.

[L0oniX]

215. +1

[riderinthestorm]

21. I really hate to bring this up but Sarah Palin forged this path of silence with the press

pretty successfully too iirc.

Not saying this will be Hillary Clintons strategy throughout her entire campaign but clearly she's decided to avoid the press questions and focus on hearing from the audience for now.

That may not be entirely bad either. The press have had a lot of access to Clinton in the past - there's not a whole lot to explore for them. Small intimate conversations with regular Americans may be the right course for now.

[DCBob]

23. Well it is a long long way until first primary.

I suspect she will say something eventually.

[MoonchildCA]

30. And why should she?

She is the anointed one, after all...

[misterhighwasted]

92. Yes. She's been annointed & crowned and I am impressed by those who think so highly of her.

Hillary would roll her eyes at such an honor but I am pleased how many here have bestowed such greatness upon Sec Clinton.
Thanks.

[FLPanhandle]

32. Let's see the total from every other candidate over the same 20 days

One data point is meaningless.

[KelleyD]

33. And........so what!

[hrmjustin]

34. Call amnesty international right now!

[WillyT]

38. Can't Wait Til Bernie Asks Her One... And She Will Have To Answer.

[Sancho]

40. smart politician...

[bunnies]

45. For some, politics is about the game. For some, its about the issues.

This thread makes it clear which side people are on.

[SidDithers]

46. **THUNK**...

And another outrage widget hits the shop floor.





Sid

[OilemFirchen]

50. Not to worry.

They do production on a moebius strip.

[BrotherIvan]

70. Canada

[SidDithers]

73. ...

Sid

[hrmjustin]

101. And?

[BrotherIvan]

143. Newfoundland?

[hrmjustin]

144. Are Canadians not allowed to give opinions here?

[BrotherIvan]

149. Aw c'mon that didn't even make you laugh?

[hrmjustin]

150. no.

[BrotherIvan]

152. ok

[L0oniX]

51. Mean while ...Bernie is.

[zeemike]

113. And he has done nothing but that.

Even when the talking heads try to make it about Hillary and what he thinks is wrong with her.
And my guess is he will continue to frustrate them like that.

[libdem4life]

55. She said she is "listening". So who expects someone to talk and listen at the same time???? n/t

[L0oniX]

61. Listening ...like this?

or like this...

[libdem4life]

65. Either one will do...LOL

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. Meh. I can't think of anything she might say that could remotely interest me.

As far as I'm concerned; there's only one person who's announced that speaks even a kernel of truth, and it ain't her.

I believe she's acutely aware that the more she speaks, the less people will like her.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. +1 Well said.

[MissDeeds]

86. Agree completely

[BrotherIvan]

63. Good lord, I just lost my appetite

This place is like a madhouse. Good for her! Who cares! As long as she wins I don't care what her positions are! She just needs to win. BARF. If Clinton were the candidate I supported, I would be hanging my head in shame at some of the shit her supporters come up with. This is as bad as a Fox News thread.

[OilemFirchen]

66. Indeed!

Can you believe someone still says BARF on the internetz?

Warden!

[BrotherIvan]

68. Well there is the smell of puke in this thread

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. Post #8takes the cake. "Keep those goal posts OUT of the ground!" (for ease of transport)

Ya can't move the goal posts if they're firmly planted.

[BrotherIvan]

75. She'll decide her positions once she wins the primary!!

The smartest strategy evah! She's just telling you what you want to hear so you'll get off of your lazy, poor butt and vote you prole. Like, duh.

[cherokeeprogressive]

76. Silly me! n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

80. Oh well I used to be disgusted...

but now I try to be amused...

I'm doing some work now, flipping back to this thread every 20 minutes or so for a howl. It's art. Performance art.

[zeemike]

117. I'm sorry but I could not resist..

[MannyGoldstein]

154. Love. That. Album.

Thanks!

[BrotherIvan]

147. I guess

The funniest part is the posters, plural, who are the first to howl about how they are being mistreated but just go for the jugular in any thread that doesn't have the correct "tone." I guess if hypocrisy of the highest order doesn't bother you, then anything is acceptable from your politicians. Blech.

[Logical]

71. Why should she? It is not like she is running for president.....err....wait. nt

[Doctor_J]

72. she'll lie low until TPP blows over.

If she faces the press now she will have to give an opinion on TPP. Once that is done, back to weighing in on controversial issues like child prostitution.

[hay rick]

140. What if she was in favor of TPP but was afraid to say so?

Would she act any differently??? Hmmmm.

[morningfog]

146. Nah. Then she'll lay low on the next current issue of importance.

Take a look people. This is a preview of a Hillary presidency.

[BainsBane]

74. She doesn't like the media

with good reason. "nuff said." If only.

It will be interesting if Sanders emerges as the nominee. You'll have to get more creative then.

[KeepItReal]

78. In the words of a famous woman, Sweet Brown:

Maybe Sec. Clinton has bronchitis, also?

[dhill926]

79. IMPEACH!!@#!&!

too soon????

[Spitfire of ATJ]

83. "the working press"

Our press doesn't work.

[JDPriestly]

85. Hillary is a contrived, lousy candidate. She doesn't feel comfortable thinking on her feet.

That has been apparent for a long, long time.

[RufusTFirefly]

89. What's the big deal? If I ever need to know what she thinks...

... I can always check with one of the denizens of her Potemkin village.

[AtomicKitten]

90. She's sitting on a pile of corporate cash. Screw the proletariat.

[Octafish]

91. It's Reaganesque.

Let the pundits roll and let the proles figure it out.

[Bobbie Jo]

168. Well the OP would know

a thing or two about that.

The Reaganesque thing, that is...

Perhaps he'll chime in on this point.

[MannyGoldstein]

172. Because I sometimes remind people that Obama's claimed his policies

are those of a 1980's republican?

[Bobbie Jo]

182. No, because

you actually voted for the union busting SOB.

[MannyGoldstein]

197. It took *me* less than 4 years to realize that 1980s Republican policies were awful

By his own admission, our President still favors them today!

Wild, huh!

[Bobbie Jo]

207. lol

4 years too many.

Pffffft. Finger wagging Reaganites.

[MannyGoldstein]

210. But our President embracing these same policies 35 years later

is OK with you, yes?

[Bobbie Jo]

211. but, but, but....

Yeah, I wouldn't want to own it either.

Once again, your premise is twisted beyond recognition.

Sorry, Reaganites have ZERO credibility with me. I'll be damned if I'm going to be admonished by one, here, or anywhere else.

btw...ease up on the alerts a bit. The jury pool is growing weary dealing with this thread.

Thanks in advance.

[MannyGoldstein]

231. "Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican in 1980s"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014336360

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

As to my alerts... how do you know how often I alert? Fantasies? Feels truthy?

[Bobbie Jo]

233. deja vu

Predictable.

Been there, done that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6560432

As to the alerts....

Keeping with the predictability theme:

Results of your jury:
Looks like the bat-shit signal went out first. nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6659654

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue May 12, 2015, 08:47 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sanders followers need to stop alert stalking on DU. This is about the 5th jury I've been on where the post was no different than the mocking posts on Hillary.Grow a thicker skin.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Huh?

Not yours??

[MannyGoldstein]

234. Yet you attack me, not the President,

who holds those backwards beliefs 35 years later.

Incredible.

For the record, not my alert, except in your fantasies.

[Bobbie Jo]

235. lol

okay.

[Puglover]

238. Back in the day we used to have a function

that was used for posters that could not play nicely together on DU. "Forced ignore".

Admin should give serious consideration to bringing it back and USING it. It might prevent unwanted vacations from DU along with all of the sads those vacations cause.

[Octafish]

205. Reagan's advisors limited exposure to be in charge of what information the public learned.

It reminded me of the OP's observation that Ms. Clinton's team also seems to be limiting exposure to be in charge of the message.

Something else I find in common is that they both have defined the national interest as what's best for Wall Street and War Inc. An example:

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World

A trove of secret documents details the US government's global push for shale gas.

by Mariah Blake
Mother Jones | September/October 2014 Issue

ONE ICY MORNING in February 2012, Hillary Clinton's plane touched down in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, which was just digging out from a fierce blizzard. Wrapped in a thick coat, the secretary of state descended the stairs to the snow-covered tarmac, where she and her aides piled into a motorcade bound for the presidential palace. That afternoon, they huddled with Bulgarian leaders, including Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, discussing everything from Syria's bloody civil war to their joint search for loose nukes. But the focus of the talks was fracking. The previous year, Bulgaria had signed a five-year, $68 million deal, granting US oil giant Chevron millions of acres in shale gas concessions. Bulgarians were outraged. Shortly before Clinton arrived, tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets carrying placards that read "Stop fracking with our water" and "Chevron go home." Bulgaria's parliament responded by voting overwhelmingly for a fracking moratorium.

Clinton urged Bulgarian officials to give fracking another chance. According to Borissov, she agreed to help fly in the "best specialists on these new technologies to present the benefits to the Bulgarian people." But resistance only grew. The following month in neighboring Romania, thousands of people gathered to protest another Chevron fracking project, and Romania's parliament began weighing its own shale gas moratorium. Again Clinton intervened, dispatching her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans. The State Depart­ment's lobbying effort culminated in late May 2012, when Morningstar held a series of meetings on fracking with top Bulgarian and Romanian officials. He also touted the technology in an interview on Bulgarian national radio, saying it could lead to a fivefold drop in the price of natural gas. A few weeks later, Romania's parliament voted down its proposed fracking ban and Bulgaria's eased its moratorium.

The episode sheds light on a crucial but little-known dimension of Clinton's diplomatic legacy. Under her leadership, the State Department worked closely with energy companies to spread fracking around the globe—part of a broader push to fight climate change, boost global energy supply, and undercut the power of adversaries such as Russia that use their energy resources as a cudgel. But environmental groups fear that exporting fracking, which has been linked to drinking-water contamination and earthquakes at home, could wreak havoc in countries with scant environmental regulation. And according to interviews, diplomatic cables, and other documents obtained by Mother Jones, American officials—some with deep ties to industry—also helped US firms clinch potentially lucrative shale concessions overseas, raising troubling questions about whose interests the program actually serves.

GEOLOGISTS HAVE LONG KNOWN that there were huge quantities of natural gas locked in shale rock. But tapping it wasn't economically viable until the late 1990s, when a Texas wildcatter named George Mitchell hit on a novel extraction method that involved drilling wells sideways from the initial borehole, then blasting them full of water, chemicals, and sand to break up the shale—a variation of a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Besides dislodging a bounty of natural gas, Mitchell's breakthrough ignited an energy revolution. Between 2006 and 2008, domestic gas reserves jumped 35 percent. The United States later vaulted past Russia to become the world's largest natural gas producer. As a result, prices dropped to record lows, and America began to wean itself from coal, along with oil and gas imports, which lessened its dependence on the Middle East. The surging global gas supply also helped shrink Russia's economic clout: Profits for Russia's state-owned gas company, Gazprom, plummeted by more than 60 percent between 2008 and 2009 alone.

Clinton, who was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, believed that shale gas could help rewrite global energy politics. "This is a moment of profound change," she later told a crowd at Georgetown University. "Countries that used to depend on others for their energy are now producers. How will this shape world events? Who will benefit, and who will not?…The answers to these questions are being written right now, and we intend to play a major role." Clinton tapped a lawyer named David Goldwyn as her special envoy for international energy affairs; his charge was "to elevate energy diplomacy as a key function of US foreign policy."

Goldwyn had a long history of promoting drilling overseas—both as a Department of Energy official under Bill Clinton and as a representative of the oil industry. From 2005 to 2009 he directed the US-Libya Business Association, an organization funded primarily by US oil companies—including Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Marathon—clamoring to tap Libya's abundant supply. Goldwyn lobbied Congress for pro-Libyan policies and even battled legislation that would have allowed families of the Lockerbie bombing victims to sue the Libyan government for its alleged role in the attack.

CONTINUED...

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

Limiting how much the press can ask "Why" serves to limit how much the public knows about how our political leaders have combined the nation's foreign policy with advancing the corporate interests, even over sound democratic policies and principles.

[99Forever]

93. Simple really. Got no credible answers?

Don't take questions. Easy, peasy.

[lobodons]

94. And tomorrow will make 21

Let the count keep going up as long as the GOP Clown Car is involved in their circular firing squad.

[leftofcool]

96. Blah, Blah Blah!

[RufusTFirefly]

97. Keep that streak going, Hill! Ripken made it. So can you!

Here's your Lou Gehrig

[7962]

99. And she wont, as long as she has a big lead. Why bother?

She's shown before that she can be easily tripped up on her own words, she doesnt like unscripted interviews, uncontrolled gatherings, etc, etc.
But as long as she's the frontrunner, she's not going to risk it by changing behavior.
Bernie Sanders may be able to put the pressure on.

[rock]

102. I'll drink to that!

[bluestateguy]

103. And that's a good thing

Why feed the simpering, unintelligent, elitist news media?

They can never be trusted anyway.

[Gamecock Lefty]

116. Oh My Gosh!

Hillary not answering questions from the media? Or one every 3.6 days? How can I sleep at night???

You want to bet if she was talking to the media every day she would then be accused of not listening to questions from real people?

Oh Hill, why can't you be more like Liz and Bernie??? NOT!

Yawn . . .

[workinclasszero]

118. Fuck the corporate owned MSM!

The damned NY Times, a supposed bastion of leftist propaganda smeared the hell out of Hillary with that BS screed/republican hit piece Clinton Cash!

As did all the Bernie fans on this board, I might add.

Totally debunked and written by a former Sarah Palin employee!

The MSM are all Koch suckers now baby! And they can all go to hell!

[Autumn]

121. Rec for pissing off the fans Manny

it's a gift and you seem to have it.

[SMC22307]

142. LOL I just recced because of the quality hides.

Damn, for someone so *irrelevant*, he really gets under their skins!

[Capt. Obvious]

239. And with that

someone will not be gracing our presence until June.

[L0oniX]

216. ^^^

[Buzz Clik]

124. That's really disconcerting considering the election is just around the corner.

Oh, wait...

[marym625]

129. nuff said?

I think the whole point is there isn't enough said.

K&R

[morningfog]

133. Day 29: still asking for money and support on her site with no link to issues

positions, policies or platforms.

A month in and the website is content free. Give me your money! Sign up to volunteer! Trust me on what my position could maybe end up being, I want to be a champion!

[KMOD]

164. lol

The press must be devastated.

I'm sure they are all dying to ask if Bill Clinton is willing to debate Jane Sanders.

[neverforget]

169. One of your biggest fans got a (ir)relevant timeout

[MannyGoldstein]

171. I think she has a secret crush on me

or something; four of her six current hides were for attacks on me.

I don't think I alerted on any of them, certainly not on the two tonight.

It's a little odd, whatever it is.

[neverforget]

178. I don't get why your fan club doesn't just put you on ignore but they just can't quit

you Manny.

[Maedhros]

227. Well, Manny IS devilishly handsome...[n/t]

[joshcryer]

179. To be fair, at least one of those hides was to a PPR'd poster.

Who called anyone who disagreed with him a "third way troll."

I think NanceGreggs just gets irritated at mud slinging.

[morningfog]

183. When mud slinging irritates, sling some shit?

[joshcryer]

184. It's a vicious circle.

[one_voice]

213. Both hides in this thread were...

bogus. I know that on one of the hides 2 of the jurors made it personal--that's NOT what the jury system is for. If you can't remain objective--then don't be a juror. Neither of them should have been hidden.


If those were worth hiding; then there are a bunch more in the same vein that should be hidden. They were vindictive hides. All one has to do is read this thread to know that.

Silly high school cliques make DU suck. This thread is a perfect example of such.

[Capt. Obvious]

240. You should share the jury results then.

Good news is that one clique leader is gone for a while.

[morningfog]

243. Jurors can vote for any or no reason,

including that they have grown tired of repeated rude disruptors.

[LittleBlue]

176. Didn't we criticize Bush for this?

Now I'm seeing high-fives for avoiding media questions. Interesting

[840high]

177. ....x10

[bigwillq]

247. ....

[mvd]

181. I don't know. I am no fan of Hillary but can't get too upset yet over this

Now if she keeps this attitude throughout her campaign, that would be wrong IMO. Though the press is not what they used to be - responsible journalists they often are not.

[woo me with science]

188. The corporate bat signal has gone out.

Last edited Tue May 12, 2015, 07:30 AM - Edit history (2)

This thread is being swarmed with attempted ridicule by DU's familiar group of corporate posters ...the same little full-time group who defend every corporate outrage coming from corporate Democrats.

This thread is being swarmed with particular vehemence, because it exposes how sick and corrupt the messaging of corporate candidates has really become. This thread is considered dangerous to the corporate candidate, because it exposes the manipulative con game played on voters and the deep perversion of representative democracy that corporate candidates represent.

All the huffy ridicule and indignation being placed here can't disguise or divert from the simple truth: that it is OUTRAGEOUS that a candidate for president of the United States of America is deliberately avoiding taking positions on the most important issues that we face as a nation.

We are being retaught a fake corporate version of democracy by our political machines, in which issues are irrelevant and politicians have no accountability to voters. The Official 2014 Democratic Party Survey of Voters lacked questions about the most important issues of our time, including the TPP. The Obama campaign, running for re-election in 2012, outright *refused* to disclose its position on Social Security to voters.

This is the sick messaging of oligarchy, not democracy. How perverse is it that mouthpieces for corporate candidates would even DARE to try to excuse or normalize this sort of lack of accountability to voters?

We are fed shiny, vapid corporate ads with focus-group tested patriotic images and stirring music, instead of what we are owed by candidates in a representative electoral process: a clear vision and a specific policy agenda. That is by definition the purpose of elections, after all...to find the candidate who *best* represents the interests of voters. Yet we have grown so used to this insulting, diversionary pablum that we *almost* forgot what a representative political process is supposed to look like.

Almost. But we haven't forgotten.

We have an honest candidate in the race now who is talking *specifics* about how to reclaim this nation from the corrupt influence of corporate money and power.

That's why we see the swarming and vitriol from the corporate messengers now. They are in the impossible position of having to explain how slick, avoidant corporate advertising is an acceptable alternative to offering a clear agenda of issues to voters in a representative political system. They can't do that. So they revert to insults, swarming, diversion, and emotional attacks. They are hoping to inflame and divert from the gravely important message here: the perversion of democracy itself by corporatism. The deliberate perversion of our elections into theater and pablum and something profitable but not representational at all. The perversion of democracy into oligarchy.

[Bobbie Jo]

195. Looks like the bat-shit signal went out first. nt

[woo me with science]

199. Right on cue. The examples keep coming.

This OP cuts to the heart of how corporatism is perverting our elections. And the swarm in response illustrates perfectly how the corporate talking point machine works to drown the important message about what candidates owe voters in a representative political process, and divert to emotional attacks and diversions, instead.

Diversionary and emotional by design, just like all corporate advertising.

[Bobbie Jo]

206. " and divert to emotional attacks and diversions, instead. "

The corporate bat signal has gone out.

[NuclearDem]

219. I liked the part where you said corporate.

[woo me with science]

194. To the Greatest Page. This OP is deeply important.

Our elections have been perverted by corporatism into theater and pageant rather than a civic exercise and representative process.

Nothing is more important in representative democracy than the accountability of candidates to voters: that proces of communicating about issues and laying out a clear, specific agenda so that votes can select the candidate who best represents their interests.

That is the foundation of a representative political system.

It speaks volumes that we have a talking point machine not only vehemently denying that responsibility on the part of candidates, but swarming desperately to attack those who state this simple truth.

[Nay]

224. "It speaks volumes" indeed. I don't care, really, if Hillary doesn't take questions

from the newspapers for 20 days or 100 days -- I DO care that she has been depending on, as you say, patriotic-sounding ads that don't say much. If she didn't want to lay out her specific beliefs about issues, then why declare so early? Frankly, she should have had her beliefs on the issues squared away WAAAAAY before she even thought about running for president; otherwise, why are you running? Really, why are you running if you don't already have a core of solid beliefs about how things should be done?

Any voter looking at this can be forgiven for thinking either one of two things: she doesn't have many solid beliefs, she just wants to be president, or she has solid beliefs that will anger the voters if she is honest.

I note that Bernie Sanders has no problems saying what he believes, nor does he have problems acting on what he believes. If he continues in this vein and can get actual voters to listen, he will help enormously in the pulling down of this Potemkin village our political system has become.

[Nay]

225. "It speaks volumes" indeed. I don't care, really, if Hillary doesn't take questions

from the newspapers for 20 days or 100 days -- I DO care that she has been depending on, as you say, patriotic-sounding ads that don't say much. If she didn't want to lay out her specific beliefs about issues, then why declare so early? Frankly, she should have had her beliefs on the issues squared away WAAAAAY before she even thought about running for president; otherwise, why are you running? Really, why are you running if you don't already have a core of solid beliefs about how things should be done?

Any voter looking at this can be forgiven for thinking either one of two things: she doesn't have many solid beliefs, she just wants to be president -- or she has solid beliefs that will anger the voters if she is honest.

I note that Bernie Sanders has no problems saying what he believes, nor does he have problems acting on what he believes. If he continues in this vein and can get actual voters to listen, he will help enormously in the pulling down of this Potemkin village our political system has become.

[leveymg]

203. Get used to the silence. She just creates more work for her staff every time she talks to the press

[99Forever]

208. If I correctly glean from some of the responses to this OP...

... the reason that Hillary Clinton has not taken questions from the press of her own nation, is that they might be mean to her? And this is the person they want to hand the most important and stressful job on the planet to? She can't deal with the icky things reporters might ask her, but she should represent us on the world stage?

Holy crap.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

212. Hillary is #45./NT

[MineralMan]

218. What is said now is forgotten tomorrow.

It's so far from the first caucuses and primaries that statements made right now will be long forgotten. She's doing other things in the early weeks of the primary campaign.

In the meantime, she's listening to what others say. As we move closer to the initial dates in Iowa, New Hampshire and other early primary states, you'll hear a lot more from her in response to media questions.

It's a strategy decision. Is it a good one? I have no idea. I'm not a campaign adviser in any way. I'm sure she's listening to the experienced people she has hired, though.

[NCTraveler]

220. Excellent.

They are going to attempt to control the narrative at all costs. She should not feed them. Hillary is in control of her campaign and it is starting off brilliantly to the chagrin of many. This is laughable.

[Beacool]

228. And this is a problem, why?

The media are a bunch of vultures. This is only May 2015, the election is not for another 1 1/2 years. Plenty of time to throw herself at the wolves.

[hughee99]

230. Since many don't believe a word she says anyway, why does it matter if she

says anything at all, right now?

[Orsino]

236. Considering our airhead media, I'm okay with that.

For now.

[PeaceNikki]

244. MEDIAGHAZI!!!11!!!1!!

[cui bono]

245. Rand Paul ran away from the press too.

Last edited Tue May 12, 2015, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Just sayin'






Said because I and others have been accused of being a libertarian just because we agreed with one thing Rand Paul said, so hey, if someone acts like him maybe there's some connection?

[woo me with science]

246. Kick to expose the arrogance and manipulation of oligarchy.

[MaggieD]

248. Excellent!

Glad to hear it! I hope she continues to freeze the out.

[cherokeeprogressive]

250. Stick your foot in your mouth so many times you suffer from athlete's tooth; you'd shut up too. n/t

[woo me with science]

251. Kick. No policy positions = A clear message there's nothing to vote for here.

And a clear message of arrogance and contempt for voters, that a candidate would even *try* to justify running a campaign this way.

[woo me with science]

255. kick

[woo me with science]

256. kick