to her. It would be my delight.

guaranteed not to ask tough questions and fully on board.

Undecided voters who could pose challenging questions? Heaven forbid.

Don't you read what you post?
It is also common knowledge to those that followed her last presidential campaign. I am suprised you know so little about the positions of the candidate you support.

She calls those that earn more than the cap middle class and does not want to burden them with taxes.

... with no risk of being asked a hard question.

A crock of full strength pablum, recycled from her campaign announcement.

How could it not be when all the people are pre-screened, vetted, and coached for the staged "interactions with everyday Iowans"?

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here, cali. Those five are Iowans that Hillary Clinton talked to. She talked to other people, as well, but elected to write about those.

She'll be meeting lots of people during the campaign, some random, but most selected by someone to meet the candidate. Thus it is in all campaigns at the presidential level. She'll also meet other people over time.

Your opposition to her candidacy appears to be coloring your choice of articles to post.

And no shit my choice of articles is a reflection of my opposition to her candidacy- just as the selection of articles by those supporting her, reflects their bias.

I happen to think that it's important that candidates meet people who are undecided and who aren't handpicked.

Her campaign is overly scripted.

Your dislike of her is continuous and of long-standing.

she had to have bus loads of supporters follow her around to fill the seats

this is her campaigns way of dodging that embarassment

Because everyday people are never invited to events.



"every candidate does not orchestrate things to such a degree."
Objective source material for allegation is going to be little more than a biased editorial? Anecdotal evidence? Another guess?

small meetings. If it is true that other students at that college were kept in their rooms while she was there this is not good. I would be throwing a fit and thinking seriously of voting against her. Remember when W had all those hand picked rallies?

And then remember the huge crowds that Obama drew? I am thinking of one in either Oregon or Washington. Can't remember which.

Still a novice at politics, thinking that everyone other than Hillary orchestrates a campaign...your hate is ridiculous.

I think I'm at free republic here these days.

Trash thread works just as well.

unfortunately.

Or we are freepers.

And when made-up sh*t about Hillary is post ad-nasuem about her and taken by so many people as fact, yeah, it is free republic...and your instant offense at my post proves my point.

And yes you did imply it...and repeated again here.
And I have seen no made up shit here...if so then show us the facts.

Why would you bother reading more posts from this "novice"? Don't act like she's an unavoidable nuisance when you have the Ignore function.

I like her threads, they keep me informed

She simply hammers home your pre-conceived ideas about Hillary, taking something fairly common that all campaigns do and making it some "proof" of how awful Hillary.

I don't read the Des Moines Register. So yeah, I am more informed

What a burn.

Love it.

are not every day Iowans. Did they become somehow "special" Iowans because try volunteered on her last campaign or are part of Democratic politics in Iowa? Were they millionaires who are out of touch with the "common-folk?"

We get it, you don't like this candidate but this isn't some nefarious plot against the voting public. It's a safe start to a very long, probably very ugly campaign season.

is that they were handpicked because they support her already.

I don't see it as any kind of plot. I just see her as a poor candidate, a bad campaigner and someone who changes positions on issues important to me.

This is sliding easily into her campaign. I'm repeating myself but this is going to be a long, ugly campaign (from Democrats and Republicans alike).

So what she talked to supporters? Do their needs and issues not count because they support her already? She highlighted a high school student, a small business owner, a single mom... yep, we shouldn't care what their issues are (or declare their issues unimportant) because they support HRC, gotcha.

"I just see her as a poor candidate, a bad campaigner and someone who changes positions on issues important to me."

And how do you know she's a bad campaigner already--she's been "campaigning" for, what, two weeks now? This is a different campaign, and who knows, maybe she learned a thing or two from her last campaign and her time in the State department. Some of the issues she's changed positions on has been for the better, so I don't fault her for that. There are plenty of things to take exception with when it comes to her as a candidate but, man, this isn't one of them.

I can't wait til she either drops out or is beaten by a better candidate in the primaries.

through the mouthpiece of everyday Iowans?

Geez.

It has such a feeling of "I'm gonna take her (supporters) down" as hard as I can.

havent seen the light...the light being that Hillary is the cause of everything awful in the world...we must be slow learners.

is that those that are trashing would have in their signatures who they're supporting. Because I'd love to read more about these better candidates.

well, at least after the massive celebration. Since they won't have anything to talk about.

You'll need some other sort of attack now. Why are you pretending that critics of Hillary support nobody? It's a lie

candidate. This thread has not presented a candidate and given information on O'Malley, talking about Hillary does not present O'Malley.

OP has made O'Malley support threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396438

Again, I'm not saying don't be critical of other contenders in the primaries.

But this overdone and constant tearing down just reeks of desperation from a lot of quarters. It's embarrassing to see it going on. Yes, it's always been a part of it, but I'm from that weird school of thought of build up my preferred candidate and spread a positive and engaging message than to be known as a muckraker.

no criticism for rival candidates? Part of the process of tearing down a front-runner is portraying her in a negative light to make the underdog more appealing.

I find it fascinating that those who say "this is politics" to defend Hillary turn on a dime when it comes to an old strategy to defeat Hillary by discrediting her astroturf supporters.

But if that's ALL you do? And you're nothing but a font of negativity? Why should anyone take you seriously?

On DU, many people I like and respect support her.

Would I like to see her lose the primary? Yes. No bones about it. I think she's a terrible candidate in a myriad of ways.

Completely out of touch with the real life experience of normal people.

People living next door to each other can have vastly different experiences. Or the same block. Or city. Or region. And so forth.

Normal as in they go to the grocery store, they don't have the secret service following them around.

Normal as in they don't get paid $250,000 for a one hour speech to Wall Street bankers.

None of that is normal. Hillary Clinton has been living in a protected bubble for 25 years completely isolated from real life.

Every candidate orchestrates campaign stops to a certain degree. They do stop and speak to many many people, but round tables only include people who already support their platform.

at least she hasn't been doing so.

Contrast that with what Bernie and Martin O'Malley have been doing recently.

I bet he finds a lot of hard working middle class Americans where he is going.

I am a little dumb-founded that anybody would have a problem with this.

Of course the campaign features strategically chosen people. So do good campaign ads.

Meeting lots of people and listening. Great job Hillary.

I mean really. A candidate chooses to meet a few selected supporters and then writes an op-ed in the local paper is evidence of being a bad politician??? What would really be awesome bashing would be something like these:

-Hillary goes on tour and ties her dog to the top of her van while driving across Iowa!
-Hillary shoots Bill in the face while hunting white rhino's on safari in Iowa!
-Hillary has a private fund-raiser and is recorded saying "50% of the women are really dumb bunnies who think I'm on their side; Haha - no way!"
-Hillary has been a member of the KKK for decades using a false name. She originally joined as part of a secret sorority that doesn't admit black women!
-Hillary had an affair the pastry chef while in the White House and there are pictures of her wearing nothing but plastic wrap!

Surely there's something scandalous or crazy and unexpected that would be worth arguing about. The repubs have spent millions, made movies, and attacked Hillary for decades. Maybe reviewing some of their stuff would provide some debatable threads? The Iowa campaign trip just doesn't seem to be worth a declaration of "Horrible Hillary" to me.

This young lady explains very well why Hillary planning questions in advance during her 2008 campaign were wrong.

If Hillary did, I still would vote for her over Jeb, Rand, etc.

If Hillary did all the crazy things on my imaginary list, I still would vote for her over Jeb, Rand, etc.

If Warren ran and did all the crazy things on my imaginary list I still would vote for Warren.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate.

Bashing the Democratic candidate isn't cool IMHO, but go ahead if you want. It would be more entertaining if there was more substance than planting questions. Something really worth arguing about besides minor and irrelevant campaign strategies.

Which is lacking and will give a Rep an advantage.

and demonstrates excellent campaign planning!

Hillary's staff (like all good campaign staffs), realize the impact of a tour or interview is on a large number of people who don't pay attention, vote with little information, and don't investigate issues.

Everyone realizes that tours and interviews are commercials, often scripted, and guests are selected.

All the "acumen" you suggest is lost on the general audience. If there is a BIG scandal (like the crazy list that I posted), you may get the attention of a subset of the independent and unaware population.

Otherwise, most voters don't vote, or vote on minimal impressions and sound bites. Her campaign knows this, plants questions that get her message across, picks people to interview who reflect the demographics they are targeting, and pick topics that polls show are of interest to the target groups.

It's great campaigning strategy. Obama and most successful candidates do the same thing to some extent. You realize of course, that Hillary got more primary votes that Obama, but only lost because of the delegate system in her first campaign.

Hillary may or may not win, but her experience as a politician and professional staff are first rate.