General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps): "From confirmation note from Texas Southern Univ, which is hosting Hillary Clinton's voting rights speech tomorrow"
The University's guidance: "There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
Texas Southern University has also informed reporters that the media must stay within certain barricades and that there will be special media-designated restrooms. Readers of the blog will no doubt recall the time New York Times reporter Amy Chozick was escorted to the restroom while covering a Clinton Global Initiative event.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/hillarys-speech-will-be-her-interview-208190.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)At least they are transparent about it.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)None that I can remember. Interviews generally held separately in a less hectic setting.
But you go ahead with the manufactured outrage and made up shit.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)it interesting that the testy, "Sit down, shaddup and wait" crowd has a problem with a candidate avoiding the press.
Sure, the press often sucks, but what sucks worse is the appearance of avoiding them.
...also, thanks for your concern.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I find it more amusing that the press is suddenly some noble, honest and trustworthy group that needs DU members to watch out for their best interests.
This 'avoiding' crappola doesn't really apply to the dissemination of any message, since messaging can be done outside of the press at times. Mass media omits when convenient and uses talking points out of context. Social media and Obama's team have shown to work in messaging, over and over. They can control the etirety of message and can disseminate the entire message without the filter of a biased media.
Hillary has been scewerd by the media at many turns...take Benghazi for instance. According to the vocal few here, she should suddenly be at their beck and call? Bullshit. The outrage is that interviews are not being done in the manner (the press) and at the time of someone else's choosing is ridiculous. Her timeline, her campaign, her decisions. I can see why she wants her campaign rally to be the official announcements of her platform, and not the misdirected, lying, twisted, out of context, cherry picked words the media is so want to do.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)it's Hillary's campaign to lose.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)F the MSM... I hope she sits down with Rachel Maddow.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Rachel would be good but I think she can handle anyone as long as its one on one.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I am not a big fan of the guy on MSNBC who became a liberal because he was languishing as a right wing talk show host.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)a big fan of Ed Shultz, but he became unwatchable lately for me. He has discussed the same things every day about the TPP and has basically just been guessing about how this un-finished bill would turn out. This isn't the first time I felt like this about Ed; I remember him going ballistic over O's 1st debate performance back in 2012, acting as if it was so much worse than it was. Maybe I'll start watching again in a few weeks, but I think Ed exaggerates things sometimes.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Impossible crazy circus talk.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)should maybe think of another career, sorry but your excuse just doesn't wash. Politics is tough, it's brutal, it's not for the weak of heart.
Which is why I, eg, would never want to be a politician. But if I did, I would be aware that if I'm asking for people's votes, I need to be willing to talk to them.
And that is why I am supporting a candidate who is very accessible to the media and to the people.
He answers all questions, even the ones that are basically attempts to smear him, honestly and directly.
The contrast is going to hurt Hillary unless she gets better advisers.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)At least. Obviously, she can't be listening to many of them if she's refusing to say anything.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)One can only imagine the power-grabbing, back-stabbing, in-fighting in her huge and unwieldy campaign organization. Ever watch the TV series, VEEP? It's an hysterically funny but painfully accurate portrayal of senior staff jockeying for position.
The title role of Madame President, Selina Meyer, played by Emmy award winning Julia Louis-Dreyfuss, appears to be very much modeled after insiders' descriptions of HRC's public persona versus private management style.
If you've never watched it, check it out:
Veep has received critical acclaim and won several major awards. It has been nominated three years in a row for the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Comedy Series, its second season won the Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Comedy Series, and its third season won the TCA Award for Outstanding Achievement in Comedy. It joins The Office, 30 Rock, and Modern Family as the only comedy series since 2000 to win awards from both the Screen Actors Guild and the Writers Guild of America in the same year. Louis-Dreyfus has won three consecutive Primetime Emmy Awards, one Screen Actors Guild Award, two Critics' Choice Television Awards and one Television Critics Association Award for her performance.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)it sounds like something that would cause more problems than it would address.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)So tell me...how many advisors does any well oiled large campaign have? How many did Obama have, Bush, McCain or Romney? Info for other candidates is sorely lacking...so there is nothing to compare to. For HRC, how many are paid? How many volunteers or pro bono, What is really meant by "advisors:? A one time set of instructions/advice and they never work again, or working throughout the entire campaign. Again, very low on details, but detractors, quick to jump on the low information as if it were another crack in the Hillary armor.
It's all made up. Embarassingly so. I wish people would stick with the real issues instead of making up an issue that just makes them look bitter and petty.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I just don't know how it would work, logistically. Do you talk to all 200? About what? Are they all advisers to Hillary, or are there like, advisers to the advisers? Or is it like, there are advisers for each state or city she's going to?
I'm just trying to figure out how having 200 advisers works. It's not an outrage or an attack, I find it genuinely odd.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)"What the hell does anyone need 200 advisors for?" sounds like a whole lot of judgement without info, and that I don't understand. I imagine she has several accountants, campaing policy experts, several that handle printed media, dozens that handle and produce commercials, several that guide her policy. Several dozen to handle the various states and media coordination. Security, wardrobe, speechwriting, debate coaches and it goes on.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I wouldn't have figured to count wardrobe or advertising segments of the campaign as "advisers." So if that's how it foes, it does make a lot more sense.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)hence my frustration when there is outrage assessed with incredibly low information. Thank you for your response.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Implying that, in theory, she could have many hundreds of advisers. LOL
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Let's be honest, you want Hillary to give the lying, misleading, word parsing press free reign to do what they do best in the hopes they publicize some manufactured dirt on any Hillary platform. So transparent.
Sienna86
(2,149 posts)But maybe they just want to recent a media circus. Who knows?
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)if the candidate arrogantly refuses to answer questions.
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)oh well, never mind
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)which is about an announcement saying HC will not answer any questions during this stop. If she is taking that attitude, it's no wonder the press is pissed at her.
okasha
(11,573 posts)She has neither the need nor the obligation to kowtow to them.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)Journalists? Pshaw, let them eat cake....
okasha
(11,573 posts)You're talking about infotainers. Broadcast journalism is dead and buried, and print/internet is on a respirator.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)....
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)They are a noble breed that must have full cooperation and action to every whim and demand?
I find that fucking hillarious.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)behavior.
Paka
(2,760 posts)They could limited the questions, but at least take a select few. How difficult is that to control?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)If you're gonna link to an article, you are also linking to the comments published with same. So don't shoot the messenger, folks! As the trial judge says to the objecting attorney, "Overruled. You opened the door, counselor!" All of these are from the OP's link:
7 hours ago
The piece is essentially an example of a political hack already in the tank making apologies for her candidate as well as the increasingly surreal campaign being planned by the candidate's handlers.
3 hours ago
It seems, Joan Walsh. that you suspended all critical reasoning powers when you attended that "briefing." You "learned" all these things from Ms. Clinton's highly paid consultants, but you didn't actually do the job of a reporter and question what you were being told, even though the Clinton machine has historically been a lie factory.
They told you that the Clinton Cash revelations have not hurt her in the polls and you believed it! But the latest ABC and CNN polls show that 58% of Americans now regard Clinton as dishonest, and her match-poll numbers against Rand Paul have dropped a whopping 18 points since April.
Clinton cannot win in 2016.
Jane Cullen
12 hours ago
Five Salon articles in two days on how the press is being unfair to poor HRC - supporter of domestic spying, co-author of the devastating TPP.
Number of articles on Obama signing off on the Patriot/Freedom Act's outrageous spying powers?
Zero.
I'll never forget a story I heard a few years back about Hillary regarding her time as First Lady of Arkansas. She was attending a Razorbacks game with a close friend when an elderly lady approached them and handed Hillary a gift - it was a pair of Razorback homemade earrings. (I'm sure they were a bit kitschy but...)The elderly lady carried on how she made them especially for Hillary, how she loved both Bill and Hillary and was so lucky to see Hillary at the game so she could gift them in person. While the woman was still present, Hillary turned to her friend and said "See what crap I have to put up with everyday in this state?" Apparently, Hillary was quite the consummate elitist even back then, surely embarrassed to be First Lady of such a backwoods "holler" Just imagine what that poor elderly woman thought. Hillary is as cold and calculating as they come. Voters, don't do it, please do not put this woman and her slimy husband anywhere close to 16 Pennsylvania Avenue
Hillary's campaign will collapse the day she actually speaks to people unscripted, and outside the bubble of sycophantic handlers.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Nope.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)controlling the message in a campaign is paramount.
Those looking for a reason to grouse about HRC will complain; but, it is smart campaigning to run at your pace.
That said, I strong suspect that the HRC campaign calculates that those grousing about her controlling the media access, will be the ones parsing her every word to grouse about something else.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Same as 08
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)don't really care what she has to say ... they won't believe it anyway.
Tell me ... would YOU open yourself up to a media that clearly is all about the gotcha?
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)....because I'm running for president and there are some things that need answers, not messaging.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that one must suspend all real life experience in order to make DU arguments to make sense.
Be honest, to yourself, if not to the board ... Is there anything HRC can say that will turn you from a HRC-doubter to a HRC-supporter?
If not, why are you insisting/why do you care how she runs her campaign?
Mr. Robot
(39 posts)You are still living in a bubble...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Is this gif your lame attempt at an insult?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)insulting those that you think are insulting. Some would call that the ultimate hypocricy. I would be one of those some.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)Thankfully it only took MIRT 36 posts with this one to figure it out. Generally when the same person keeps getting banned & comes back with the same tired shit it's fair to call them on it.
Have a great night.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I thought you were responding to 1strongBlackMan..one of our finest.
Mr. Robot
(39 posts)In fact, he handles them and throws it back on them.
That is a real President to me.
Hillary is invisible until 6/13/15, and by then, it'll be too late.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when in the lead one must control the tempo. You get that. Right?
Mr. Robot
(39 posts)Wrong.
Even if you are leading, sometimes the tempo can get away from you if you let someone else control the press - and Bernie is certainly making waves.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)except on DU.
What was that you posted about being in a bubble?
frylock
(34,825 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The folks that I meet when volunteering on service projects ... The random folks I come across when out and about ... the parents of the kids I mentor ... and more, the Democrats that I meet when volunteering with in organizing voter registration drives and GOTV efforts.
peecoolyour
(336 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)...When it comes to sabotaging and then losing one's own presidential primary campaign.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Controlling the message would mean she or anyone would answer questions in such a way as to illicit positive responses that lead to more talk and more questions. You do not have any control over the message when you do not answer the questions. Whether you like it or not, the media does control the message. They will help decide whether a candidate is likeable, trustworthy, serious on the issues, etc.
What she is doing is the equivalent of a child covering their eyes and saying you can't see me. 
She is giving the media more and more each day for them to speculate on. Why is the speech the interview? Who actually believes that is real? What is so special about the speech that she won't take questions about it after it has been given? Why won't she answer follow up questions on the issues covered in the speech? If she doesn't answer those questions, guess what? Someone else will. That is decidedly NOT positively controlling the message.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)communication plans with mine?
I'll go first ... I have close to 15 years in a professional capacity, managing Organizational Development efforts, 7 years in a court-room, 5 years as a consultant on Organizational Development efforts, and close to 20 in a volunteer capacity for various projects (though much of this was concurrent).
I know a little something about message and message control.
Yes ... this is true; but, your internet search is incomplete ... there are, probably, a hundred considerations BEFORE you get to the "answer questions in such a way as to illicit positive responses" phase.
Okay ... whose opinion to weight? HRC's campaign staff, who have more real life campaign experience; or, some anonymous guy on the internet, who is obviously NOT a HRC-supporter, and clearly knows little about message control?
Whoa that's a tough one.
TM99
(8,352 posts)who wish to remain anonymous.
For what it is worth, I have a Ph.D in psychology and an MBA. I have worked in various profit and non-profit organizations and have dealt with leadership, communications, and marketing arenas as well as counseling psychology in private practice & teaching at the college level.
I know a thing or to. You do as well.
So perhaps this is a wash? You are a Clinton supporter. I am not. You believe it is good messaging control. I do not.
I guess we will see when the next round of polls showing trust and favorability come out. Right now, her numbers look pretty bad.
This approach that her team has taken I suggest will make those numbers even worse soon.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)your credentials are comparable; though, we disagree. I guess that's why there is more than one person employed in communications consultations!
No! I am not a HRC supporter ... yet. I am, however, a Democrat, looking to get a Democrat into the Whitehouse in 2016, who believes it counter-productive and myopic to scorch the Earth, by either candidate ... which BTW, neither candidate has done, nor do I think they will.
Yes, I do believe in good message control and see the HRC camp doing just that. (As you know) The big three in message control are: Message, Audience and Timing, with each dependent on control of the others.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)of her message and make it sound believable. If she doesn't control the outcome it will be controlled for her by the press.
Message control does not equal avoidance or the appearance of avoidance.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..will take more than just repeating what Warren or Bernie are saying.
She WILL have to answer questions, sooner or later.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(get out in front)?
I suspect that you will see a steady up-tick in media contacts ... after June 13th.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Is there anything she can say that will turn you from a HRC-Doubter to a HRC-Supporter?
TM99
(8,352 posts)I am a not a registered Democrat so I am more concerned with the type of (D) elected than just a (D) gets elected.
The problem I am seeing is that there is too much control. If you exercise too much in Message, Audience, and Timing, it can and will begin to feel manipulative and not organic. That is what I suspect will occur sooner rather than later. Her 'vast right wing conspiracy' predisposes her to paranoia and defensiveness. When on the defensive, it looks like the person is attacking. That then puts the audience on the defensive. A communication pattern develops that never ends well.
I would advise her to relax some. She needs to really mingle with the people. She has to do more actual connecting than stagecraft if she wants those trust numbers to go up. My two cents for what it is worth.
mopinko
(70,127 posts)when i saw her at her book launch she talked about the "fact free universe". i dont blame her at all for refusing to play their stupid games.
i would tell them to go fuck themselves.
Mr. Robot
(39 posts)is "The press are not important to me - they can say whatever they want, and my SuperPAC can handle it"..
Smacks of arrogance, doesn't it?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that will turn you from a HRC-doubter to a HRC-supporter?
Mr. Robot
(39 posts)and begin speaking out of the gate.
That's what Bernie did when he announced, he spoke out of the gate. What does Hillary have to hide? She is on our side, but she is not acting like a Democrat. She is acting like a 1%. Grassroot support for Hillary is at $1,000 per person up to $2,700 for access to Clinton? Bernie makes himself accessible and does not hide anything. Trust me when I say this: He is attracting a lot of unhappy voters who are SICK and TIRED of the status quo for the last 30-40 years, pretty much since Reagan.... where both parties squabbling and moving to the right. People are not voting because they are sick of the status quo, and want a different approach. Bernie's approach is the freshest we've had in probably 40 years. People got excited about Dean, but it faded. But the Bernie phenomenon - it is the real thing.
I have never experienced anything like that all my life, and I love it. That, to me, is what a true progressive Democrat should be.
I'm ready to primary those who follow Clinton or the Third Way.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)With her shunning of the media, she has conceded the framing to them. She is making her inaccessibility the story rather than, oh I don't know, issues.
This is what I can't stand about Clinton. It is always about her, never about the issues or the people. She is a horrible campaigner and relies far too heavily on her money. She is Big Campaign and it is not a positive for the party or the people.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bought advance copies of a smear book and ran headlines without vetting their investment? That media?
Wow ... where have I heard that frame before? Hmmm ... Oh yeah ... wasn't/isn't that the right's characterization of this President; the most narcissist President ... ever!
I was reading that the right will soon be applying its "
President) Obamaisms" to "Hillaryisms" ... seems that DU is beating them to the punch.morningfog
(18,115 posts)Hillary is not in control of the message and is doing her candidacy a great disfavor by acting as if she in entitled to ignore the media.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)It will be interesting to see her speech and her policy proposals. That's what most interests me regarding this speech. Expanding voting rights is very important. I'm glad she's addressing it and look forward to what all the candidates think can be done to expand those rights.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
ms liberty
(8,580 posts)This really won't end well if she does.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that buys advance copying of a smear book and runs headlines based solely on that smear book without doing the minimum of vetting of the books claims.
Paka
(2,760 posts)"Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel"? She's not doing herself any favors. There are better ways to control messaging than denying questions altogether.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Reporters doing their job? Jeesh, the media is going to turn on her fairly quickly with this attitude.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)
840high
(17,196 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)the media that are honest to ask questions.
It's really not that hard, but avoidance will = a hardship she doesn't need.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but then the grouse will be ... "HRC didn't invite 'the right' journalists" ... and I suspect you know that. After all, during her Listening tour, the grouse from the people that demanded that she connect with the public was "HRC didn't listen to 'the right' members of the public", and after a recent press conference, the grouse was "HRC isn't answering 'the right'/enough questions from the press."
I think that most know that she will never be able to satisfy the demands of the right or those that do not support her.
And why should she? ... the only folks paying any attention to what is going on are political activists, who know what is going on. And a small smattering of politically aware undecideds and/or are open to her candidacy, who also see what is happening ... and those outside of these groups are not likely to be paying attention, this far out from the primaries, let alone the General Election.
So any "hardship" she experiences is from political activists, that do not, and will never, support her.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I don't know if wanting to stay on message should be interpreted as fear so much as it is insistence on control.
I'm not sure that sort of control is going to be accepted as a good thing. The media still get to cut up her speeches into sound-bites. I think the reporters like to be seen getting answers, cutting them out of their dose of Dr Feelgood could make reporters and news directors more intent on finding hidden meaning in the speeches.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I was compared to FOX News and directed to a media matters piece criticizing the same--- for ignoring her many stated issue positions during a speech she recently gave.
One problem, though, in the speech they were talking about, she didn't take any positions, except supporting equal pay.
(Unless "promoting civility" is apparently, now, a clearly defined policy position.)
So, intelligence insulted in a series of posts, I was then directed to Hillary Clinton's website where, I was assured, I would find all these stated policy and issue positions I was so willfully, deliberately, and insincerely ignoring.
I couldn't find any. Does someone want to help me out?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And if her track record doesn't support your gut feelings, you're supposed to come up with reasons why history is wrong and your gut is right.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and the policy specifics she's going to lay out in it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026774587
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026775534
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That is more like what I'm talking about.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)claiming to be Bernie supporters, hell yes I will call that shit out.
Because that kind of toxic waste is the last thing we need Bernie's name associated with.
Clinton is giving a speech on voting rights tomorrow. People who care about policies welcome that. Those who just want to burn Clinton at the stake participate in hatefests like this comment thread.
I support Bernie because of policies, not hatred of other candidates.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)And oh wow! A speech with no questions allowed. SOP for Clinton, the great triangulator/policy-by-focus-group campaigner. Big Whoop!
Hillary Clinton, who has aggravated reporters with her limited press avails, will not take questions after her speech at Texas Southern University on Thursday, the school informed reporters Wednesday..
The University's guidance: "There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
The Clinton camp has frustrated reporters at almost every turn. Since her campaign's launch in April (although now her campaign apparently "officially" launches on June 13 in New York), she hasn't sat down for a formal interview with any media organization. Before answering questions from the press in New Hampshire and Iowa last month, Clinton had gone 28 days without answering a single question from the media.
Texas Southern University has also informed reporters that the media must stay within certain barricades and that there will be special media-designated restrooms. Readers of the blog will no doubt recall the time New York Times reporter Amy Chozick was escorted to the restroom while covering a Clinton Global Initiative event
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/hillarys-speech-will-be-her-interview-208190.html
peecoolyour
(336 posts)And I haven't seen one instance of it in this thread.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)A big lie (German: Große Lüge) is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined in 1925 Germany about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And now lecture us that the posts shown above are a "big lie"?
Whoa. I feel sorry for whoever's side you're actually on. In sure they'd ask you to stop offending women, for starters.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Note that Divernan has expressed approval of that vile slur.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6776596
Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.
You all are doing more to make people sympathetic to Clinton than the Clinton supporters.
Cha
(297,323 posts)how ugly and misogynistic.
thank you for calling out the viciousness even though you're a Bernie Supporter. You're not the only Bernie Supporter who's sick of this. I can think of two prolific ones right now.
They totally turned me off Bernie. Not his fault but I hang out on DU, am in Hawaii, and they have taken over the board with their mean spirits... They're such terrible representatives of his campaign.
Cha
(297,323 posts)"Bernie LOGO."
If anyone would be so hateful to post stupid shit like that about Bernie... they'd be screaming the Loudest. And, I would too.. but, it's okay if it's directed to Hillary.. 'cause it's so twistedly "clever".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to expect the/any front running candidate to NOT control the pace of their messaging?
Would you?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The media will be there, they'll record things.
Imagine an anchor asking the reporter "How does Sec Clinton square her statement *****? " And the reporter answering, "We can't know, Sec Clinton refuses to take our questions".
I think that will stoke suspicion among those who already want to be suspicious. And, you know, the media gets paid to be suspicious.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Do a little research, will ya?
For my money, her "history" amounts to holding her finger in the air, and turning in whatever direction the dollar bills hit it from.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)respond by inventing reason to be outraged.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)When a candidate says stuff like that they should expect criticism.
The reason why is because a speech is not an interview. The statement is absurd and somewhat outrageous because it seems like Hillary thinks she doesn't have to face questions.
She's making a choice not to risk facing questions. That's maybe a good strategic choice but it does have costs.
Paka
(2,760 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I can't believe that even HRC supporters wouldn't find it odd.
Rex
(65,616 posts)
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)I wouldn't want any questions either.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The shear arrogance is amazing.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
brooklynite
(94,598 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)attacks on Hillary until the primaries.
Maybe after Hillary's HUGE kick off event in NYC it might cool down a bit around here.
But I doubt it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Yeah you are probably right.
But shes going to win the nomination and the presidency anyway, so theres that. 
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)The "grassroots" conversation open only to the wealthy and now "the speech is the interview." I'm having flashbacks of Daddy Bush being shocked by a cash register.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 3, 2015, 10:15 PM - Edit history (1)
I dislike when folks are not made available to the media, or when there's different rules for different events.
Granted, I only cover sports, but dislike when coaches are not made available. Coaches should have to talk after a game.
That being said, the Clinton team is certainly doing a good job of trying to control the media, and I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. The Clinton team is basically saying "You are going to play by our rules". At least they've been consistent.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)the talking points of the candidate's campaign.
Otherwise what is the point of having a free press? If I want talking points I can go the candidates website...
Response to peecoolyour (Original post)
Post removed
Response to peecoolyour (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #49)
Post removed
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)lately of Bernie Sanders -- and yet now suddenly it's vitally important that Hillary address and cater to them? Why? Oh right -- because it's Hillary.
how many times have people bleated about rejecting the premise of their stupid games?
but yeah, it's hillary, so forget all that.
Paka
(2,760 posts)He's equally good with the dumb and the not-so-dumb. Hillary ought to give it a try. She might grow into it and learn to like taking an uncalculated stand.
Cha
(297,323 posts)right people.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You're conflating two different problems.
1. a terrible corporate owned media
2. a candidate that refuses to state her positions
No one is asking Hillary to address and cater to the media, we would like her to do that to the people. The people have a right to know where a candidate for the presidency stands on the issues that concern them.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)exactly where she stands on issues important to us. She's been in the public spotlight for decades; there is nothing new.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Has she said anything about what happened with the Patriot Act? How she feels about the Freedom Act? I don't believe she has spoken to the TPP problem, I don't know if she came out with anything regarding the spying.
A Hillary supporter told me it was reported that she made a deal with Obama not to criticize his policies and in return he would not criticize her and her campaign.
That does not lead me to believe we know her positions on much.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 3, 2015, 10:50 PM - Edit history (1)
When's the last time you learned anything of value from some idiot box TV reporter interviewing a Democrat? Especially if their name is Clinton or Obama? Ten seconds into any answer they'll rudely interrupt like they have some important point when the reality is they are trying to make a name for themselves as a media celebrity. Outside of Rachel Maddow I don't have an ounce of respect for any domestic TV reporter. You are living in fantasy land in you think some White, rich, millionaire asking another White, rich, millionaire questions will have anything to do with informing the working class public. I already know what the right wing talking points are. Having Wolf Blitzer repeat them for me isn't necessary.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Oh well. I guess it's all about the reporters themselves, and has absolutely nothing to do with the attitude displayed to the lessers.
ZX86
(1,428 posts)It is all about the reporters. Repeating right wing talking points is not an interview that means squat to me as a working person. Questions about the Clinton Foundation, emails, Benghazi, etc. doesn't address my paycheck, infrastructure, bankers gone wild, the MIC, the environment, killer cops, the high cost of education, endless tax breaks for the rich, endless war, or any other real concerns facing the poor, working poor, and middle class Americans.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you actually wanted to know what people here objected to, you could actually read the thread.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Well maybe a few of us care about some of those things... well maybe most of us care about most of those things. I care about the Clinton Foundation's possible improprieties, infrastructure, bankers, the MIC, the environment, killer cops, cost of education, tax breaks for the rich, endless war and concerns facing the poor, working poor, and the middle class. Other than that, and some other stuff I probably forgot, who cares if she answers any questions and states her positions on anything.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in a cutesy but totally obvious way?
Yeah, this it totally healthy stuff.
okasha
(11,573 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and SOME DUers respond by calling her a c@nt.
I'm voting for Sanders in the primary, but the psychotic hatred flowing from SOME in his camp makes me deeply uncomfortable.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I find that disturbing.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)In terms of this OP, it's idiotic. Candidates usually do not do press interviews following a major public address. Most press members would not expect them to do so. Obama gave interviews in Oregon but not at and after the big speeches, on other days. Pretending this is unusual insults anyone who has a brain.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Why waste bandwidth on speech day with media availability? That'd be stepping on your own message.
The press isn't dying to ask her about voting rights, or the minimum wage, or civil liberties. Maybe 1 or 2 about the TPP, but they're not going to get anything out of her on that.
We've heard enough questions on emails, her charity, and Benghazi.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)are not values with which I associate Bernie.
The real question is how people who claim to be supporters of Bernie justify that kind of pathological, sewer rhetoric.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)The "sewer rhetoric" has been limited to your undocumented posts.
Evidently you got nuthin'.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)group and the unofficial 'populist' Hillary Hate group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
Divernan
(15,480 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That you approve of and endorse that stuff tells me you're in this for the HillaryHate a and not policy.
Note that the blatant misogyny which you find so clever got "Feel the Bern" banned by MIRT.
I reject your values. And so does Bernie Sanders, who would recoil in disgust at such antics.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)And using that phrase from a joke that is decades old is hardly clever.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and "Populist Reform of the Democratic Party" groups. Said host then reiterated the troll's misogynistic slur, explicitly noting his agreement with said misogynistic slur.
Maybe we'd have fewer awful trolls if your own members behaved better and made awful trolls feel less than perfectly welcome.
Just a crazy thought, in case people are actually concerned with reflecting Bernie's values in a positive manner.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)peecoolyour
(336 posts)Surely you jest.
DFW
(54,408 posts)And Bernie has been doing weekly spots on Thom's show since he was a congressman over ten years ago.
Not exactly a fair comparison.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)who will go on and field unscreened and unprepared questions. Thom won't let any politician on his show if they demand the questions be screened or pre-approved.
I'm quite certain he would be elated to have Hillary on his show if she would agree to that. Do you think she would?
DFW
(54,408 posts)Howard Dean arranges to have breakfast with me whenever we are in the same city at the same time because we got to be friends when he was Howard Who? If I suddenly wrote to him now and asked as an unknown, I doubt he would have the time. Old friendships matter, even with famous politicians. Thom's friendship with Bernie matters, as does the fact that the two of them see eye to eye on most major issues.
I quite agree that Thom would be elated to have Hillary on his show. I do not know if Hillary thinks his audience is wide enough to warrant (in her eyes) taking the time to do it. She may not even know who he is. I have seen her in unrehearsed situations, and she did fine. She took a question from none other than Frank Luntz one time I was there, and she got him to literally get down on one knee at her answer. Luntz knows he's offering bullshit, and while the Foxsuckers might be blind to it, Hillary saw him coming a mile away, and he knew it.
If she feels Thom Hartmann, as a good friend and long-time admirer of Bernie Sanders, might be hostile, she would probably refuse before Bernie might refuse a situation he feels would be hostile. She has a huge lead to blow and Bernie has nothing to lose. They are starting from completely different positions. Both have a gift for charming hostile audiences and interviewers, and at their ages and positions, don't really fear much. I don't know Hillary well, and I don't know Bernie at all, but I'd bet they harbor a LOT less hostility for each other than their supporters on DU do for each other. Howard vouches for Bernie, even though he's supporting Hillary, and if Howard says Bernie's a good man, then that's all I need to know.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If Hillary wants to be paranoid or doesn't know him well enough to know he is very fair then she is wrong. However, that is not the first reason I think she would not go on his show.
Do you think she would agree to the no pre-planned questions and no unscreened questions from callers? Oh, and I forgot the other rule, no rules about what is not to be asked about? I think there's no way in hell she would agree to that.
And if Bernie didn't do that he wouldn't be on the show either. That's Thom's requirement of all politicians.
DFW
(54,408 posts)But he is a softball show for Bernie, who has practically been sort of a one-day-a-week co-host since over a decade ago. I couldn't say if Hillary would do the show or not, and I don't know if she would insist on pre-conditions or not. I really haven't been following her campaign much. I have been paying what attention I can spare more to what Bernie has been saying, since I find new voices worthy of attention. If O'Malley has some new stuff to add to the equation, I'll be listening to that, too.
Hillary's positions on some things are familiar, need more articulation on others, but I'm in no rush, as the first primaries are 6 months+ away, and I will not be rushed into backing one over the other at this point. I'm just one voice anyway, and no one listens to it except my wife and my daughters, and my wife can't vote.
I'm just happy that we have three candidates out there, none of which scare me. I described the current Republican roster of "candidates" as "a bunch of frustrated vultures fighting over which piece of decaying carrion the meanest one of them gets to chew on," which got me a nice laugh from a friend who is an MSNBC host, but it was probably language a little too strong for her to use it on her show 
I try to hold back a little on a public forum like this one, as I am not interested in participating in a civil war. I feel no such need when it comes to Republicans.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)is out there talking with them, as evidenced by his appearance on Thom's show. What politician would take the time to go on a talk show to field unscreened questions from callers?
He doesn't go on to chat with Thom, he goes on to answer questions, so I don't think that comment is valid either.
Sorry, but that is the clear difference. Bernie does it and has done it and Hillary is not doing it. She won't even come out and state what her position is on a few crucial current issues. That is not working for the people. Bernie is completely working for the people and communicating with them as well. That's a big difference, imo, and one that goes towards him being my candidate of choice.
DFW
(54,408 posts)That where the host and the guest are in agreement about most everything. I've listened to podcasts of Breakfast with Bernie often enough to know what goes on there. It makes no difference if it's on Thom Hartmann's show or Fox Noise or Chuck Todd. Bernie on Hartmann is like Santorum on Fox--they won't have a confrontational host. Bernie on Hartmann is more inspiring because the lines are unrehearsed, but it's still a sympathetic forum. Bernie on Fox or Santorum on Hartmann--now THERE'S the opposite of a softball situation. Campaign slogans have nothing to do with it.
Frankly, if I were Bernie Sanders going on Fox, I'd give them a pre-condition, too: that he's allowed to have his say without being interrupted, and that this is stated on the air to the public before the start of the interview so that the public will see clearly if the Fox "host" is sticking to their word or not. Without that, I wouldn't go on Fox Noise at all, whether Bernie, Hillary or O'Malley. Not all pre-conditions are bad.
I don't have a "candidate of choice" yet, and won't be badgered into it before I'm ready to make my own decision (pro-choice, and all that). If you've made yours already, that's fine and dandy. Go right ahead. You won't hear me telling you that you're wrong. I expect to be accorded the same courtesy.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Anyone who goes on Fox needs a suit of armor!!! lol.
But Hartmann's show is for Dems, for the left. So it's not like going into enemy territory. If you're saying that Hillary's views are too different from Thom's so she might hesitate to go on the show, well I don't think that's right. He's very fair, he lets everyone have their say.
Again, I think the main reason you'd never see her on the show is that she would never agree to the conditions. Just look at all the 'regulations' just to get a pic with her at an event!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Advocacy journalists do a great deal of good, but they're not tough interviewers. That's not their job.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)You've got a Bernie icon. Why?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to call Hillary Clinton a c@nt, that must mean I hate Bernie.
Cha
(297,323 posts)anti-Hillary crap.
Swear I'm not stalking you.. just like your posts here. Some what of a marvel. You are a Bernie Supporter but you stand up to his supporters who are giving him a bad name and have not one clue.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)i read the op was - who the hell does she think she is.
TM99
(8,352 posts)She will be our next president whether you like it or not!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Learn to read!
The University's guidance: "There will be NO opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton; her speech will be her interview."
Divernan
(15,480 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)comes from the university.
As for not doing an interview on a given day, so what?
That is a fake, fake, fake, fake process story driven by the RNC.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7298996
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Clinton a c-bomb I'll take such concern seriously.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)You've been asked for links, haven't you? Don't be shy, now!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Like calling her husband's seduction victim a "narcissistic looneytoon", or that audio tape where she's interviewed about her client, the 40-something year old rapist of a 12 year old girl. HRC used a slip up in the chain of evidence to plea bargain him down to time served, and then laughingly told her interviewer that the fact that this rapist passed a lie detector test forever destroyed HRC's faith in lie detectors. Now that was a real hoot, wasn't it?
Hillary Clinton's successful 1975 legal defense of an accused rapist has surfaced again with the victim, angered over a tape of Clinton chuckling over her courtroom tactics in the case, lashing out at the potential Democratic presidential candidate.
"Hillary Clinton took me through hell," the victim told the Daily Beast in an emotional interview published today. The woman said that if she saw Clinton today she would say, "I realize the truth now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I heard you on tape laughing."
"He took a lie-detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs," Clinton said about her client on the tapes, which were initially recorded, but never used, in the early 1980s.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/hillary-clinton-dogged-by-1975-rape-case/
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Which explains why you think it's acceptable to call her a c@nt, nudge nudge wink wink.
Haters gonna hate, and that's all you bring to the table.
Shame on you and your ilk for hijacking the Bernie candidacy here.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)And of course you can't deny the truth of my post. You have no concern for a 12 year old rape victim? Some might call that misogynistic. You can't admit to me or yourself that this was a despicable chapter in HRC's life.
I'm glad to say I don't hate Hillary. Hatred eats away at the soul. And I don't bring hatred to the table. I do bring cold, hard, documented facts to the debate. And I do love the truth. And progressive values. And as a female attorney of HRC's generation, I cannot for the life of me understand a female attorney volunteering to give a pro bono defense to a man she believed to be a rapist. If you have no concern for that, I suggest you look into your heart.
I have a lot of pity for her. She could have done so much with her life on her own - given all her education and ability - if she had had the self-respect and courage to leave a serially adulterous husband. Her choice to stay, of course. But I do not respect her for it. She's gone through a hell of national and international humiliation being his wife, but it was always her choice.
This commenter on a Salon article stated what HRC might have done with her life:
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/02/the_beltways_clinton_derangement_syndrome_what_i_saw_inside_a_hillary_campaign_briefing/#comments
She might have been laboring as a government lawyer after concluding her gig with the Nixon impeachement staff. As a Yale law graduate, she could have easily scored a gig a a top New York, DC or Chicago firm, and be comfortably retired now after earning seven figures for quite a while. Or, she could have decided to work in the legal department of a human rights or environmental cause.
Instead, she married a brilliant kid from nowhere and moved to the middle of nowhere, where he was elected governor of a nothing state. One presumes that she read Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan and all the seminal feminist authors, but rather than go out on her own, she chose to stand by her man and be serially humiliated. She worked at the best law firm in Podunk, Arkansas.
This is a person whose whole public persona is an oxymoron: a supposed feminist icon who stuck by her abusive man as a barefoot pregnant high school dropout might, rationalizing that the end was worth the means; a supposed leader and independent woman whose life's total accomplishments are due to being married to said abusive man; a supposed champion of the little guy who hobnobs with billionaires and thinks she "earns" more for a 60 minute speech than four middle class Americans do in a year.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I see you clearly now, and I am disgusted.
Cha
(297,323 posts)and help Hillary than anyone on this board.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6775973
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It IS noticed, geek.
I wonder how you deal with yourself -shutting your eyes to Hillary's laughter over defending a pedophile rapist.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Surprised that you all had time, given the efforts to excuse the dropping of the c-bomb on Clinton.
Clinton was a defense lawyer appointed to represent an awful client. She had a duty of zealous advocacy. Defense lawyers develop gallows humor.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It was not Hillary's defense of a pedophile rapist that is being criticized.
It is her chuckling over the fact that she KNEW he was guilty and yet the lie detector showed he was not lying.
She chuckled over it. That is NOT part of the job description.
But it IS consistent with her general lack of care over the lives she is responsible for destroying.
Duck it all you want, attack me personally all you want.
But you ARE a hypocrite on this.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You see her as some kind of inhuman monster. Just like NYC_SKP does.
Therefore, it's rather tedious to discuss her with you. She is not my first choice and it's a sign of trouble for the party that there was no real other high profile challenger.
But, I do not hate her, and recognize that the odds are she will be the nominee.
So, hate away.
And, I am not interested in your opinion of my personality and my character. Not in the slightest. So please don't bore me with opinions I find irrelevant.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And it isn't even really an opinion as much as it is a blatant fact.
I have had many, many clients. None of them require that I chuckle about them getting off an a charge of pedophile rape.
Nope, that isn't part of the job.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I know if I saw that a Republican had defended a pedophile rapist and then laughed after seeing, surprisingly, that they passed a lie detector, I would be outraged and I know you would be too.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Hillary being such a corporatist beholden to Wall Street money should have any trouble with the corporate owned media. It's tough to be a hater because you end up contradicting yourself jumping too fast to conclusions.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)The 1st Amendment guarantees your right to speak and print whatever you wish.
What it does not do is give you a constitutional right to access the people you are covering. You are not constitutionally entitled to an quickie interview, or a 30 minute sit-down interview or a press conference. That has to be earned.
Throd
(7,208 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Texas Southern University has also informed reporters that the media must stay within certain barricades and that there will be special media-designated restrooms. Readers of the blog will no doubt recall the time New York Times reporter Amy Chozick was escorted to the restroom while covering a Clinton Global Initiative event.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/hillarys-speech-will-be-her-interview-208190.html
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)She invited to give a SPEECH. Not a press conference or question and answer session.
I don't think it hurts her at all. It won't change anyone's mind about her either way. And I might add, if and when she does do an interview; someone is going to find something wrong with that too.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...and it's highly annoying. She never takes media questions. All of her events in Iowa are closed-door meetings with party activists. No media. Really, no nothing. Her campaign says this is part of her "listening tour."
For the love of Pete--Hillary Clinton is a smart, strong, brilliant woman. Can she just be real for five flipping seconds and stop with the tightly orchestrated PR billshit. Just get out there and talk with the people. Listen. Answer questions. Conversate.
Is it really that difficult? Did she learn nothing from her third place Iowa finish in 2008?
peecoolyour
(336 posts)Some of the most fond moments I have of politicians is when they take off the mask in an unscripted moment and genuinely express how they really feel about something. Obama has had a few of those.
Those moments usually end up with them backtracking or apologizing and I'm just sitting back wishing they were like that 24/7. It's such a breath of fresh air not having to endure a living, breathing advertisement.
CTBlueboy
(154 posts)How dare the press question Lady Hillary 
:
If your afraid to answer questions from the press maybe she just need to pull out the race
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)and in her policy proposals. Expanding voting rights is a serious matter. She has every right to choose when to field questions. I'm sure she'll do that down the road. When you're a frontrunner you have a stronger ability to choose your pace. I'm not knocking Bernie either. His style is his style.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The messenger, and it deeply hypocritical.
I hope it's a great speech and that Sanders and OMalley BOTH join in with their support or policy suggestions. Wouldn't that be awesome?
The Dems should be unified on this.
Thankfully the candidates are not as foolish as their partisan supporters on this site.
frylock
(34,825 posts)not entirely certain of what point you're trying to make here.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Way ahead of the issues. Screwed up priorities.
frylock
(34,825 posts)they're questioning her strategy of ignoring the press at her own peril. There is only so far that brand recognition is going to take her, and as was stated upthread, she's going to step out of her bubble only to find that the press is no longer interested. I applaud her strategy, quite frankly, as I think it will facilitate her downfall.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)There's going to be more than a year of interviews- and debates before the election. Not sure why anyone thinks that is not plenty? The press could give fuck all about voting rights- and it seems too many here have jumped off the social justice train too. Whatever.
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...a handful for a post with a vid of an actual candidate interview.
Watch: Martin O'Malley's Wide-Ranging Interview/Q&A at US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026774750
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
Puglover
(16,380 posts)Sharon Engle for this. Hillary is NO Sharon Engle but the action is very similar.
I cannot imagine what they are thinking.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
sendero
(28,552 posts)..... I agree with HRC. The Press is useless. They exaggerate molehills and ignore mountains. They are bought and paid for whores who no candidate should bother interacting with.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)When I was very involved with the Democratic party in Florida, I personally had a major political reporter for a large Florida paper removed from the private reception and speeches involving several ranking members of the Democratic Party including the VP. The press was to have access later during the dinner speeches and this jerk snuck in with his credentials tucked under his coat. He knew better. I found a Secret Service agent and the reporter was escorted to the press holding area.
The press is always restricted to certain areas during these events, especially something this large and this important for the Clinton campaign, or for any campaign. Before anyone starts telling me Bernie didn't, I don't have any idea what he did... that's his choice, but that doesn't mean any other campaign should be ridiculed for this. In Sec. Clinton's case, she has the added SS protection which will dictate how the event is staged.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)She's speaking about voting rights at a university. They don't want reporters trampling all over the audience and screaming at Clinton.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)She might as well do what she wants ... the amount of whining isn't going to change.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)on this stuff without being offensive?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)When they jump out and ask questions about Benghazi and her emails why even bother to allow the questions. It would be the same questions over and over, not smart. She has a plan, she is strong and she will not bend and jump to the presses pressure.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
It's like flying coach these days - sit down, shut up and eat your peanuts, pigs.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)Much ado about nothing here form the beltway media.
