Poll: Clinton hasn't answered a Press question in 20 days

[MannyGoldstein]

I'm getting the sense that most DUers think that's a good thing, based on this train wreck of a thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026657929

But let's see... do YOU think it's a good thing, neutral, or negative?

17 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Thumbs up!
	4 (24%)
	Thumbs sideways.
	1 (6%)
	Thumbs down!
	12 (71%)
	Thumb in Manny's eye
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hrmjustin]

1. Another train wreck of a thread?

Who would have thought!

[rhett o rick]

18. So you have an opportunity to refute what he says. But no, just a cute emoticon. nm

[hrmjustin]

22. And this bothers you?

[zappaman]

25. Careful...

He might call you a fascist cuz...

"Vote for HRC and let the country slide right into fascism"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6658778

[hrmjustin]

27. This place gets stranger and stranger.

[840high]

28. I like the way

this place has gone. Go Bernie.

[hrmjustin]

29. Of course.

[840high]

41. Hugs back at 'ya.

[hrmjustin]

42. Thanks.

[rhett o rick]

32. I think that the desire is that it's intended to bother. But IMO it's a signal that that's all

you've got. It doesn't bother me in the least.

[hrmjustin]

35. Are we not allowed to respond sarcastically or in good fun?

Oh btw Rhett I have plenty.

Cheers budfy and I hope we can unite around our nominee is.

[Logical]

43. Wow do you whine a lot. Nt

[hrmjustin]

45. Beer mostly.

[one_voice]

46. I see what you did there..

[hrmjustin]

47. .

[eloydude]

2. If Clinton is avoiding the media because she's afraid to be tripped up

she's already lost.

Bernie has been able to withstand the media for the last 4 decades and speaks to the media on a daily basis.. Hillary can't even be bothered to say something for the last 3 weeks in terms of public policy.

Bad move, Clinton - it shows that you're simply not ready to be President. A President except for Chimpy W. McSniffyCoke would be not be ignoring the media.

[okasha]

65. Senator Sanders has to speak to the media daily

to try to establish a wider political identity and bolster his fundraising.

When Hillary's chewed up Republican Congressional committees and emerged unscathed, I seriously doubt that the press intimidates her. And the truth is--see above--she simply doesn't need to court the media hyenas.

[RiverLover]

3. Hologram candidate.

There, but not.

[think]

4. Meanwhile Bernie lays out in great detail why the TPP is a disaster for American workers

In addition to speaking to the media and expressing his opposition to the fast tracking of the TPP Sanders takes the time to lay out everything that is wrong with free trade agreements as they have been currently written and implemented in this speech:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12805875

With so much at stake with the TPP the silence from the other camp is deafening....

[NanceGreggs]

5. Well, at least you got ...

... "train wreck of a thread" right.

[Marr]

6. I think it's a sad commentary on our political system.

These multibillion dollar political campaigns are more like big advertising campaigns for a new movie than substantive discussions of public policy. It's a shallow personality contest where the big money candidates don't even seem to feel they need to discuss policy as anything more than some focus-group-tested talking point in a well-timed ad.

[woo me with science]

19. [phone] It's the faux democracy of oligarchy.

This is the slimy manipulation of corporatists who want the facade of democracy without the need to actually represent the people.

[Autumn]

7. I think she knows that once she starts talking her numbers will fall.

I'll go with pass on the options, I think it's cowardly.

[SidDithers]

8. ...

Sid

[Unvanguard]

9. I think it is unimportant noise.

She has other work to do at the moment.

[TM99]

11. Like what?

She is no longer a Senator or the SoS.

Sanders is campaigning AND still a Senator. He is communicating his message through the mainstream and alternative presses and social media daily.

Wonder what she is so afraid of saying?

[Unvanguard]

15. Clinton hasn't stopped communicating with voters.

That's not the claim the article makes. Its claim is that she hasn't answered media questions in 20 days. It's WaPo being self-obsessed: "How dare a candidate not think we're what makes the world go round!" But they're not, especially for a candidate like Clinton, who has been in the public eye for more than two decades and doesn't need the media to reach people. What she needs to figure out is what her approach is going to be in 2016: what her themes are, what policy stances she'll highlight, what her strategy will be for reaching and connecting to voters. And she needs to make sure her campaign team is effective, competent, and well-disciplined. There will be lots of time for the media to interview her (and obsess, largely pointlessly, about her answers) later in the campaign.

[TM99]

17. So, in other words,

the only thing she is doing right now is deciding how she will run?

She ran in 2008. She's been running since she became Senator of New York. If she is still trying to figure out her approach, then she is just blowing smoke up our asses.

I am really glad the candidate I support doesn't have to waste time on that. He is congruent and has been consistent all his political career. He is not an opportunist looking for the best way to massage his persona for the next campaign.

[Unvanguard]

33. If Sanders is wise, he is also thinking hard about how to craft his message.

And he seems wise to me.

[TM99]

38. Already done.

You can see him currently in various interviews, media presentations, social media engagements, etc. sharing his message.

Clinton is apparently still working on her's, eh?!

[Unvanguard]

40. If your only point here is to play a childish "My candidate is better than yours" game

I have no interest. Especially because I'm probably going to vote for Sanders in the primary. Just not because of the sorts of irrelevancies this thread is harping on.

Manny Goldstein asked a question and I answered it. It is possible to think about what candidates are doing and evaluate it without descending into pointless cheerleading.

[TM99]

44. Hardly a childish game.

We have been told repeatedly on these forums that money and media exposure are the only things that truly matter anymore with regards to running for national office.

Yet, here is the supposed top Democratic candidate who has avoided media exposure for almost 30 days. Why?

You gave an answer that I disagreed with. She is working on other stuff. Well so is the other candidate.

She is trying to figure out her what her candidacy will be. Why? Hasn't she already? Shouldn't she have done that prior to running?

I don't want a candidate that has to figure out after they decide to run when every one knew they were going to run what the hell their 'message' and 'campaign strategy' is going to be. That shows me someone who is insincere, opportunistic, and untrustworthy.

Yes, I am promoting Sanders because I don't have to wonder about him. I do not have to wonder if he is being sincere and honest when he speaks. Will he talk a populist message and then govern as a moderate Reagan Republican like Obama did? No. Is he opportunistic like Clinton has proven herself to be? No.

You are defending Clinton. I am not.

[Unvanguard]

48. Sanders and Clinton have appropriately different priorities.

The big weakness Sanders has is that he has little to no establishment support and weak name recognition. To overcome these obstacles, the more attention he gets, the better. He needs to be taken as a serious candidate, he needs to make his issue stances known, he needs people to get who he is and to break through the media perception of him as a fringe candidate. This requires just as much careful framing and message discipline as for any other political campaign--actually, probably more.

Clinton does not have any of these weaknesses. She does not need better name recognition and she has an abundance of establishment support. She does not need to do media interviews to get people to pay attention to her policy views, or to connect with voters, or to change perceptions of her. She needs to accomplish two things: (1) not fail horribly in the primary and (2) win the 2016 general election. Doing lots of media interviews in May 2015 does nothing for either of those goals. I do not know if there is anything especially useful for her to be doing at the moment, but if there is, it is along the lines of what I said: preparatory work for what comes later.

[woo me with science]

20. ROFL!

This must be the new talking point. I read in another thread that the reason she is not taking policy positions is because she is "listening" to voters.

What utter horseshit.

She's doing what Third Way politicians do: trying very hard not to have to speak publicly about her policy agenda, because she knows her record is clear and her only choices are ugly ones:

(1)

She can embrace and run on her corporate, warmongering history and policy agenda. But if she does that, she alienates the 99 percent, who are sick of looting, murderous, predatory corporate exploitation.

OR

(2)

She can LIE about and deny her true agenda, and pretend to be populist. But if she does that, she alienates the 99 percent, who are sick of obvious manipulative lies from corrupt, corporate politicians.

Third Way politicians can't win by speaking to the public, because they are corrupt. And now that we have a genuinely honest candidate in the race, their corruption is glaring by contrast. Hence the endless attempts to avoid the press altogether and focus instead on dispensing slick, shiny, vapid corporate commercials.

[Unvanguard]

36. Clinton has been taking policy positions, though.

On economic inequality, on mass incarceration, on immigration. Again: the narrow claim made here was about her answering media questions. Not about her being in the public eye.

[rhett o rick]

23. Let me see if I got your point. HRC, who has been running for the presidency for decades

needs to wait for her team to get up and running before she can comment on important issues of the day.

Really?

[Unvanguard]

37. That's not what I said.

So, no, not really.

[rhett o rick]

49. Really? So let's look to see what you actually said. "And she needs to make sure her campaign team

is effective, competent, and well-disciplined." So she can't tell us what she thinks about the ongoing debate re. the TPP, because "she needs to make sure her campaign team is effective, competent, and well-disciplined." So when asked about her stance on the TPP she will answer, "I need to make sure my campaign team is effective, competent, and well-disciplined before I can answer"

"What she needs to figure out is what her approach is going to be in 2016". You can't be serious. She needs to figure out how she feels about these important issues? Can you spell T R I A N G U L A T I O N.

HRC is a corporatist.

[Unvanguard]

51. The poll question wasn't about the TPP.

It was about Clinton not answering any media questions in the past twenty days.

Clinton won't say what her stance is on the TPP because she doesn't want to take a stance on something that obviously divides Democrats, and therefore her supporters.

[rhett o rick]

52. I agree. It's about the fact that instead of speaking to the important issues of the day

she prefers to keep quiet.

And this, "Clinton won't say what her stance is on the TPP because she doesn't want to take a stance on something that obviously divides Democrats, and therefore her supporters." You can't really be serious. She has a stance. She isn't figuring out what her stance is. She supports Free Trade but is afraid to speak out because it currently isn't popular.

Can you spell TRIANGULATION?

[DURHAM D]

10. Damn. Where is the LOL option? nt

[JaneyVee]

12. You're now a fan?

[joshcryer]

13. Our media does a disservice to our democracy.

Once Bernie goes live on the 26th he'll be wise to just ignore them. Taking advantage of the talking head circuit (circus?) early is smart, but once he goes live the ground efforts are what are going to matter to his campaign, not being part of a media circus that will twist and contort everything to their profit advantage.

[woo me with science]

21. What a slimy talking point.

You made it about Bernie, but the veiled message here is that politicians should avoid the media and don't have a responsibility to take clear and public policy positions that all voters can hear and respond to. That's a convenient talking point that has been attempted all day long to try to excuse Hillary's outrageous refusal to answer questions and define her policy agenda clearly and honestly to voters. Now it appears that the talking point dispensers for corporate politicians have determined that this shameless defense of silence in the media might sell a little better if they encouraged BERNIE not to talk to the media instead.

What manipulative garbage. Bernie is working very hard to make his positions known to voters despite a corrupt media that is trying its best to marginalize him. He would lambaste a dishonest talking point suggesting that politicians have a justification for hiding their agendas rather than communicating with voters in what is supposed to be a democratic, representative process of election.

This sort of manipulation is how corporate politicians and their mouthpieces sell the faux democracy of oligarchy. It's how they try to justify the unconscionable: their use of slick and vapid advertising to avoid the responsibility that REAL democracy would ask of them: to set out a clear and detailed policy agenda that allows citizens to select the candidate who will best represent their interests in government.

Shame on them.

[joshcryer]

24. We saw how the media treated Gore.

I find it alarming that suddenly the main stream media is good around here. Some thing is going on and I don't like it.

[JI7]

53. the ground efforts is exactly why Obama was able to be competitive and win against Clinton

and it started much earlier on than this point. sanders has already announced yet those who claim to support him still seem to be more focused on clinton.

i don't think obama did that well in the primary debates or at least nothing that stood out. it was all the ground work that helped him .

[progree]

14. She's listening and nodding. And nodding...

At about 1:00 the nodding part is all over and they just blather on and on about politics (just plain old insipid blather) so no need to watch beyond 1:00.

[bigwillq]

16. Had to vote for Thumb in Manny's eye!

Great poll choice!

[zappaman]

26. 20 days is almost 3 weeks!1!1!1!

Omigod!!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Great point.

Thanks for weighing in.

[840high]

31. Glad you find it funny. I would

like to know where she stands on certain issues.

[The Straight Story]

34. You mean the same media that asked so much about Obama's birth cert, benghazi, etc

is upset that someone isn't feeding them with well over a year left before the election.

I wonder about the people who care so much about this....

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

39. I know just what you mean mannygoldstein

And I tell ya, them journalist's are wondering what the hell is up with Hillary doing the shun thumb on them and all.
I mean after all they get paid and are paid bonus's based on what they bring back that sell's the news.
And there's a lot of journalists hot footing it around the political spectrum hoping for that big breaking explosive news exclusive
that will lead to a cushy seat on the tv news !

You know Brian's way !

I'll give ya a thunbs up for having a bit of a sense of humor about it !
I rather suspect you major concern is not knowing whats up since whats going down is out of the so called norm.

Could it be it's all about a changing pace to keep aligned with the changing times?
A little creative campaigning perhaps ?

I think people are tired of being played by the media.
And sickened by politicians that play into all that crap.
Fabricated sensationalism and all that.
I think HRC gets it.
But that's just my opinion.

My goodness those media polls did it up good with that over there in the UK.
You know those media mongers even had a creative excuse for the bogus polling results !
After it all went down they said people at the polls said one thing going in and did the opposite of what they said in the vote
than lied about that upon exit !

Well, so much for polls !

[pkdu]

50. Here a thought based on Hard numbers...

Take the number of days candidate "X" hasn't answered Press questions.
Divide by the number days left till the Primary by " X" ...= "Y"
If "Y" is greater than 10 ....then clearly,
I don't give a fuck.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. That's only because no one has asked her what her most inspirational Bible passage, is.

Or whether on not as president she would "empower families and communities".

See, Manny, if the Press would DO ITS JOB and ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS, I'm sure she would be glad to answer them.

[woo me with science]

55. Kick to expose the arrogance of oligarchy. Representative elections, my ass.

[Vinca]

56. She'd be wise to start talking about infrastructure . . . today.

I suspect she's being "over managed." They want to protect her in bubble wrap and foam peanuts until November, 2016.

[woo me with science]

57. kick

[Bobbie Jo]

64. weird

[bigtree]

58. Jeb complained this week about the same thing

...bruh.

I thought of your thread. Does the press speak for you?

[woo me with science]

59. That's a surprisingly low response.

Based on your recent posts, I wouldn't expect this kind of snide dismissal from you.

Do you really have no problem with the vapidity of corporate campaigns? The replacement of laying out a solid, clear agenda to voters so that they can pick the best candidate to represent their interests, with shiny corporate videos and vague, noncommittal doublespeak? Do you REALLY have no problem with deliberate avoidance of major issues by a candidate for president of the United States?

[bigtree]

60. I have a low opinion of 'the press'

...surprising?

The press is going to accurately report on her 'agenda?' That you appear to think so surprises me even more.

[woo me with science]

63. See post 21. You are excusing her

for hiding her positions from voters. That's a slimy position to take.

You can't use corrupt media as an excuse for corporate politicians to deceive voters and deliberately hide from the democratic process.

If Hillary were truly concerned about corrupt media, she would be calling out their avoidance of real issues and doing her best to work around them to make her agenda clear. That is what Bernie Sanders is doing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026685757

Instead, she is USING corrupt media as an excuse to avoid taking positions on issues where her actual positions are unpopular, and predatory. She is the poster candidate for the vapid, policy-avoidant, entertainment pageants our elections have become under corporate rule. She ought to be ashamed.

[bigtree]

66. I saw the press other day repeat a few of the 'liberal' positions she's been voicing, verbatim

...is that good reporting, or no?

What do you think Hillary is apt to say that is believable to you? Don't you already know what her 'agenda' is? Aren't there a number of journalists already outlining where Hillary actually stands on the issues?

Do you believe Hillary's really a progressive populist now, based on what's been reported about what she's said? That reporting has value to you? Bruh...

Over a year out from the election, this is a bogus complaint. She will say a great deal more about her agenda, and I'm certain you'll find more than enough reported about that to disagree with. Right now, it's just trolling, pretending that the press has integrity enough to accurately report where she stands and what she's apt to do if elected, based on her past. I don't really care, but to pretend caring about this is akin to caring about her agenda is pure bullshit. Save the outrage for the rubes.

[woo me with science]

67. No, her claims to be a populist aren't remotely believable to me, or anyone who knows her record.

Her entire record belies such claims. What I would LIKE to see, is....gasp....some honesty about her positions, rather than hiding from the press on major issues like the TPP and mouthing platitudes that can be taken both ways.

It's insulting to voters, and it's particularly insulting when it's excused by pretending that it serves some noble cause of avoiding the corrupt media. What utter horseshit, and what a convenient way to rationalize the slimy corporate goal of transforming our elections from civic events about policy to empty theater.

We need our democratic representative government back. We need elections in which candidates lay out clear and honest agendas so that they can be discussed, and so that citizens can choose the candidate who best represents their interests. That this needs to be explained to ANYBODY is a sign of how perversely corrupted our political landscape has become under the influence of filthy corporate money.

People are sick of the lies, and we want real, representative elections. It's that simple.

[MannyGoldstein]

68. How many @#$&ing times do I need to tell you people?

I'm Tagg Romney, not Jeb Bush.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. That's because the media isn't asking her the important questions, that the Public needs answered.

Like "is the Bible the best book ever, or the best AND most inspirational"?

And

"Do you think that we should empower communities, families, or communities AND families?"

[sendero]

62. I'm no fan of HRC...

... in any way shape or form, but I give her credit for bypassing the fourth estate, who haven't added value or done their job for 2 decades at least . Fuck the MSM.