"failed the test", but I notice Hillary's appearances aren't being seriously interrupted by the same group--crickets about that. Why is that? More security? Hand-picked crowds?

Or not...I don't care what kind of a fool you make of Hillary haters.

protest group to target the lady who is 50-60% in the polls, versus the guy who garners 10%? Or 2%?

...there's only so much hijacking of a thread you can attempt before you're just being disruptive. Anything to offer on the subject of a campaign focus on issues particular to women?

Your cooperation notwithstanding, I'd ask that posters not feed into this diversion on this thread I've posted.

On Mon Jul 20, 2015, 01:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

BLM not able to get in there and shout her down? How come?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=462526

REASON FOR ALERT

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

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Poster manages to smear BLM and Hillary in one post. At some point this kind of thing needs to stop.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jul 20, 2015, 01:36 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seems to be a reasonable if impliednquestion.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If discussing BLM is appropriate for the other candidates, it's appropriate for Clinton.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not near sufficient reason to be alerting. Disrespectful toward the DU community to alert on such specious unjustifiable grounds.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster did dialog with others to defend the post. This is more important than trying to hide expression we don't like.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

...the poster was very gracious in withdrawing upon request.

I respect you bigtree, and think you deserve to request decorum for your OP, but many of those crying foul in this thread would not extend that courtesy in a Sanders thread. Matter of fact, I suspect several are already back out feverishly working Sanders with BLM.

Clearly that is not Hillary.

these issues are important to us. The fact that she has spoke out about it for so many years, that she will continue the fight, and that as important as Obama was to shine a light on BLM issues, Hillary will do the same for women. I have daughters, I want much better for them than the hand I was dealt. I think Hillary can move things in the right direction.

...not just support for a woman for women's sake, but supporting a candidate for their actual efforts and advocacy of issues particular and important to women.

Hillary on Women's Rights. Bernie on Economic Justice.

And neither seems to be entirely comfortable (not yet, anyway) straying far from their specialties.

(My apologies to O'Malley supporters, but I can't tell if he's settled into a comfortable niche for him, yet.)

Followed by immigration?

Followed by voting rights?

Followed by economic policy?

It was just an off-the-cuff observation on my part -- worth every bit as much as you paid for it. Peace.

How's government going to do that?

I'm not at all opposed to the idea--in fact, I'm all for it.

But these are the kind of glittering generalities that Hillary spouts instead of plans and proposals.

.., one of her primary efforts has been to highlight 'women's rights' early in this campaign and throughout her career as senator and also as Sec of State.

Some of the issues she emphasizes are the availability of child care and family leave as important for women succeeding in the workplace. She's also emphasized and advocated equal pay for women.

Hillary Clinton says that the gender gap won’t close unless we significantly change the culture that pervades the American workplace.

“There are a lot of women who think they had to make a choice,” Clinton said on Wednesday morning at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City. “For a lot of them it’s a choice that was in effect forced on them: I can either pursue my career in the time that it’d be most likely I could have a child or not. There’s a growing awareness in our own society that we can’t just give lip service to the idea that mothers are important. We have to provide the support systems that enable women to make the choices that are right for them.”

The numbers around women in the workforce are disheartening at best. There’s the fact that for every dollar men earn, women earn 78 cents. There’s the fact that in the tech industry, working mothers make $11,247 less than women without children and men. And of course, there are all those hideously imbalanced diversity reports being released by companies like Google, Facebook, and Apple.

But while many of these companies and other organizations are trying to correct this imbalance by supporting coding courses and STEM education, former secretary of state Clinton believes we must do more than just fill the pipeline with talent. When she talks about providing “support systems,” she means benefits like affordable childcare, free preschool programs, and paid family and maternity leave. “Those are not just nice luxuries for women,” Clinton said. “They would fundamentally free up women to be in the workforce if they had the skills and desire to do so.”

As she explained, the absence of such programs, which are readily available in many other countries around the world, sends a strong signal to women that “society and our economy don’t value mothers.”

but in its generality it does not mean much to me.

...but not included in these press accounts.That shouldn't surprise anyone who has observed scant focus on these issues raised by advocates from ANY news source.

I did, however bother to look some instances up where she's been specific and had those specifics reported, in post #19 above.

I'm sure folks here who are supporting her candidacy in this primary can fill in more gaps for you if you're not willing to look further than this op.