Why do you hate freedom zones

Seems all too familiar, doesn't it?

The OP is Republican-style self destructive primary behavior.

DU is just getting warmed up, this is pretty tame. And Hillary is not only out of touch, but secretive - she clearly did not want the reporters to hear and report on her answers to constituents' questions. Would Bernie have minded? I think not. When you always tell the truth you don't have to worry so much about how your responses to questions will be reported and what difficulties it may cause you.

The Trash and Ignore functions work just fine.

as a Bernie supporter as chance to talk about his excellent record. Politics is a dirty game, I expected these attacks so all I do is post OPs that tell the FACTS rather than kick threads that are lying about my candidate.

I don't like any of it, frankly, and if I were you, I would start another OP and answer anything you consider to be a false claim against the candidate you support there.

If you have facts to counter smears and lies then there is nothing to worry about, it's just an opportunity to promote your candidate.

Think how much better campaigns would be if everyone just talked about issues.

Or is it comparing a Hillary Clinton campaign event to a Republican/ George Bush event? Yeah, that is really advancing the discussion in a positive manner.

...if this is true, and the Press was either forbidden to attend, or forced into a corral,
it is worth discussion.
Civil Liberties IS a big issue.

... and that is certainly your opinion, but there are MANY of us that do. It's being compared to a Republican/ George Bush event, BECAUSE it has a striking resemblance to what happened then. It says something quite relevant in MANY of our opinions as to Clinton's fitness to represent us as Democrats.

Not a press conference.

I'm sure I'll be vilified for saying this, but come on. This is petty.

I've never heard of even Repuglican candidates using a tactic like this.

Perhaps this is a minor event ... I'm not sure about "petty".

This kind of condescension towards the press is not something I expect in a Democratic candidate for the nomination.

Why do they receive protection? RFK was killed while campaigning. George Wallace was shot while campaigning. Other declared candidates also gets protection.

Why doesn't the press get more access, because the questions about Benghazi and emails are stupid over and over questions.

I might be wrong but I do not think they all get protection yet. She does by her being a previous First Lady. If she would do answer to the press once and awhile, those questions would go away. How many press questions has she taken since she announced? Maybe a dozen in these months?

I saw one about Trump she avoided today on ABC news site. She was asked a question as she made an unscheduled stop for pie.

They don't seem to be holding anyone back but the press.

However I do agree with the petty comment. This is a parade, not a place to hound the candidate with questions.

The the Benghazi protestors? Yes, that is republican nonsense. The e-mail issue may not be, but Benghazi is so over. I don't believe for a minute that Clinton did anything wrong regarding Benghazi. I do wish however, that her emails regarding her job were all in the public domain.

That is, if you enjoy comments that read like satire.

"regular folks are eating a lot of cake these days."

Oh good gracious...

The email. More problems are slowly coming out over that issue. Benghazi is so over and she did nothing wrong. Even in the article they are pushing in this thread, she only stopped to talk to wounded marine. She did not even acknowledge the supporters that tried to drown out the protesters. She needs to open up to the press and answer every question they can possibly ask. They will get tired and stop. They hound her now because she is never available to them. She ropes them off and then runs away.

Ask. Perhaps if they would ask different questions she would answer some or divert back to the answers she wants to give. The emails are proving some interesting points and revealing where was on certain issues for a while.

Candidates do not receive protection unless they are in the protection group and major candidates gets 120 days of protection in before the general election.

Although I think Bernie would be in more need of protection than Hillary.

without Wallstreet guards.

The party's nominees each get protection, when they become their party's nominee.. Obama got protection earlier because of the unprecedented number of violent and credible threats he was receiving during the primaries, IIRC. Hillary has protection as a former First Lady.

Post #87 was Bengazi and emails.

AFTER they win the primaries. Now in Hillary's Case, she might have Secret Service Protection as a former First Lady but, they would have walked beside her, minus the "rope line" and the parade would have had small barriers between her and the parade goers.

Anytime she walked over the shake a hand or kiss a baby, the Secret Service would have been RIGHT beside her. This is NOT what's displayed by this picture. It appears to be a "Queen" too proper to mingle with the common-folks.

Not a good look at all.

You know she has sat down with people and talked to them. I never posted or thought she should receive coronation but I have read where others say this. Just another myth.

It'll be further and further for the press for Clinton as she wants to avoid the national eye and leave everyone (except the 1%) guessing on what she stands for.

Love it.

6 days a week they're the evil right wing corporate media. When Hillary does something like use a rope line to keep them back, they're 'real people.'

Well said.

If you don't have facts, manufacture outrage.

that still needs to be answered, or hit the talk shows ready to defend her record.

She is purposefully avoiding M$M - Bernie embraces it. That tells me exactly the kind of person I want, especially when one is a master of dealing with Republican-aligned talk shows...

And he invites people to ask questions every Friday on Thom Hartmann's show - Brunch with Bernie.

... George W. Bush going on FOX News circa 2003.

who call in and ask questions. The amazing thing is he actually answers them, does not filibuster or change the subject like most politicians. I do not think Hillary does that every week though.

Heard some doozies put to him from non supporters

I am sure Hillary does not hand pick her groups that she Listens too, lol

As that seems to be what it takes to have a conversation with you. The calls are screened to get name and locations but not all call in shows screen for content. I can figure that out from the many times I have listened and heard the callers on the opposite side of the issues call in.

You must tell the screener what your question or comment is.

As ALL is impossible to verify. At least some allow all pertinent questions to be asked, like what happens with brunch with Bernie. I give him credit. I am sure Hillary does that weekly too, right? Or is she scared to talk to the people like Bernie does every week.

Here's a discussion of the software:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/07/call-screening-software

Not to mention you said ALL talk shows. Sorry but you are not always correct.

That is a possible function, not always utilized.

Thanks for the confirmation. The only screwing is to be on TOPIC, not the content of the callers questions. Sounds like you might not have been on topic.

Since there is nothing I can state that you will agree with and I have yard work to do, have a great day!

You're spinning and twisting in the wind.

Duckhunter935 at 9:44AM: The calls are screened to get name and locations but not all call in shows screen for content.
Duckhunter935 at 10:20AM: The only screening is to be on TOPIC, not the content of the callers questions.

and what I said again, even Hartmann himself states he screens to ensure the content is on TOPIC. Too bad it seems you have a problem your call was not allowed due to it not being on TOPIC.

As I have always said, he allows callers that are on topic to speak to Bernie weekly even if they do not agree with him on the issues. This is quite unlike queen Hillary, who thinks she is above the common people and with wall street and was just passing the time till the coronation.

....or you would be better informed.

a candidate for the people.

Real people like Bernie. Needs those freedom cables to protect her.

They put that rope up after a while to keep the press gaggle 10' away so she could interact with the crowd. I assume she didn't want to walk the whole parade surrounded by a circle of reporters. The rope did not keep the "real people" away from her, nor was it there to "protect her" from "real people." Sheesh.

what do you think they were going to say. Now I guess it is to protect her from the evil press. Funny where have I seen that done before?

People in the crowd could be intimidated by a press camera and mic being shoved in their face.

The press have mics that can pick up conversation from well over 10' away. Sounds like these press people were not very professional or not prepared.

Without the unnecessary rope. All she had to do is act like every other candidate in a parade and walk over to folks to greet them on the sidelines or sidewalk.

Her "Protectors" could have walked right beside her the whole way ensure both the parade goer and candidate were "free" of the press.

Calling the press "evil"?

Pretty much every second somewhere on DU.

Are they now angels of mercy?

something occurred, the press could be in danger, too ....The Secret Service has to tightly control these kinds of events as much as possible....and it wasn't supposed to be a press conference...could you think people running around with mikes all over the place creating confusion? Do you think today's media would actually be able to control themselves without some organization??

This petty crap is getting old...people need to stop the automatic carping and grow up!

I'm beginning to think there are people on DU who woud be fine with a physical attack on Clinton...

Ugh! Mature people would be content with being happy their chosen candidate is doing well without resorting to ill will toward someone who shares MANY of the same views...

I'd like to know if Bernie is aware of the crap he is attracting among his supporters...

No one on here wants her attacked. The reason they try and ask her questions is she almost never has press conferences. When she did a while back she too what, a total of about 6 questions?

see irrational hostility going in constantly and comments about other politicians that get pretty out of hand...nothing would surprise me anymore...NOTHING!

Wishing harm to her, bet you can't. And yes to accuse DU members of that is indeed sick.

Again, twisting what is wondered about.

So like what Republicans like to do...

I'm getting less and less and impressed with some Bernie supporters.

Haven't you been aware of instigators who go one step too far and incite aggressive behavior???

Think about certain Democratic Convention history...and many other times not directly related to Democratic politics...
Hell, Obama's staffers were grabbing cardboard Hillary...what did that reflect?????

Things have already started getting ugly...who knows where the path goes in this lovely political world we are in?..

Get a clue, I'm done with this...

Since you are the one accusing DU members would like for Hillary to get attacked. No proof from you and you really should edit YOUR statement or delete YOUR statement. That is way over the top and is just disgusting in my opinion. You can not link to one instance of what you stated and just continue with more insults, very sad.

I did not say people have expressed a desire for physical attack...

I am merely speculating that at some point I wouldn't be surprised if there were some who might not be disapointed if it happened...secretly, deep down..

You think all at DU sre saints? No extemists or trolls??

Why are you so indignant when there is history to look at, including misogyny from a recent Democratic campaign??? None of us know what is hidden in people...

Think about the far extremes and how they meet in many ways...

You have no reason to be insulted if you think about the undercurrents in this society at large

Your words, sick and no place here in my opinion

The press was likely blocking interaction and protection.


The pettiness and hatred is really thick here.

It was the Clinton campaign and not the secret service that came up with the stupid rope idea.

Are ignored to ensure Hillary does not seem "standoffish" but, in anyone besides her strong supporters view, she likely does. The MSM is going to have a field day with this picture on the Monday news cycle. Just saying....

He seeks out people in the crowds
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=480

but they do not use a rope to keep the candidate away from the people. Two separate things. I hope you now understand. I tried to make it as plain and simple as possible.

Read the article.

You didn't read the article.

In American political terminology, a politician "walking down the rope line" or "working the rope line" is shaking hands of his or her supporters and guests.

Sen. Sanders talks with @NPR's @AilsaChang during a 4th of July parade. See the story here:http://www.npr.org/2014/07/10/330193246/could-a-socialist-senator-become-a-national-brand

PLUS in post 15 you said the Sanders campaign doesn't use Rope Lines to rope people out - now you admit they do.

You haven't read the article and are relying on Republican spin.

You're not very good at this.

I will accept you apology. I stated correctly that "rope lines" is a political term to shake supporters hands along a route. I have stated that Hillary used. A physical "Rope" not "rope line". There is a difference, I expect you know that though.

Well, I guess sometimes It's a chain.

Metal barriers

I saw has no people other than staff and secret service protection. One picture is never the full story. I am sure you know that though.