going to be much of one. They need to keep up appearances.

According to Gallup, for example, she is the most admired woman in the world. What's more, she has been the most admired woman in the world for 17 out of the past 18 years.


This is news to 90% of DU as well!

I don't think her popularity is incredibly relevant, though, and "admitting" to it isn't really a problem for the MSM.

Once her policy positions are known, and alternatives examined, she'll lose a lot of support. That's why she's keeping mum.

I don't quite understand your post.

In the article it says:

I quoted those parts from the article because if they are accurate, then I'm not sure from whom we will learn "her policy positions" and the "alternatives" as you noted: "Once her policy positions are known, and alternatives examined, she'll lose a lot of support. That's why she's keeping mum."

It would appear, again if the information in the article is accurate, we will be informed of "policy positions" and "alternatives" from a dishonest media. That may be "informative" of something. I'm not sure it's helpful.

And the population at large, who don't know her personally and know little of her positions. It's entirely possible that journalists who follow her tour and see her almost daily don't like her. That's what happened with Jimmy Carter, there was mutual dislike between he and his covering media.

I understood that part. I quoted the parts I didn't understand.

I'd say "she's keeping mum" because the media distorts a lot of reporting about someone they "dislike."

It would appear, again if the information in the article is accurate, we will be informed of "policy positions" and "alternatives" from a dishonest media. That may be "informative" of something. I'm not sure it's helpful. (bold added)

"Once her policy positions are known, and alternatives examined" by the same media who "don't like her." I'm not sure that means a media who "don't like her" will be reporting honestly and accurately on her "policy positions" or the "alternatives examined" and that would mean those "who...know little of her positions" and those positions of others, will be presented with faulty information and thereby make sure that people won't, in fact, know of her positions and those of others, i.e., repubs, O'Malley, and Sanders. The readers/viewers will come away with a distorted view of all positions of those involved. Yeah, I can see the media framing the debate against Democrats and toward repubs.

As reported by "the media" discussed in the article.

Interesting.

I don't mean to imply anything about you, of course. I meant only it's interesting about "those people" who take "the media" at its word and don't bother to check for what actually happened; you know, who, what, why, where, when, and how and all the intricacies needed to understand concepts and actions "the media" glosses over and/or selectively "reports" and/or spins.

The "Dean Scream," what happened to ACORN, and the other shit james o'keefe is up to these days in Texas, and the latest of the "scandals" of the day and how "the media" was/is/continues to be so, er, factual, accurate, and comprehensive in their coverage.

It started after Vietnam and Watergate.

The right-wing convinced themselves that the ONLY reason we lost in Vietnam was because of losing popular support at home. Same goes for Watergate, they kept repeating to themselves the mantra "ALL presidents were crooked, Nixon just got caught" until they believed it themselves. Both of those events they blamed on the media. They resolved to never let it happen again so they infiltrated the media.

The media used to broadcast a speech by the president and then fact check them. Reagan came along and would spew so many lies and distortions that the fact checking segment often ran longer than the speech. The media changed its formula. Instead of fact checking they abdicated their responsibility to the public and put on a democrat to respond. This would later become the "50/50" "he said/she said" "Let the audience decide" NONSENSE we have today with smash mouth politics performing verbal WWF for infotainment.

Apparently. Or they've been "bought off."

When talking heads can make enough to catapult them into the upper echelons of financial worth, there can be people lined up for the "paycheck" and benefits involved who are willing to catapult whatever propaganda will keep them in "the custom" to which they'd like to "become accustom."

"Some of them are wearing a suit that cost more than most people make in a month."......or in a year. Yep. Our "Fourth Estate" has been auctioned and sold at a premium and we're left holding the worthless paper on which the sale was written.

Instead of being a "well informed populace" we're awash in shit, spin, and more shit; anything that can be "thrown against the wall and will stick" for long enough to make the press deadlines.

Once she's forced to state her positions, and the American people can make comparative evaluations with the other candidates, we'll see how brightly her star shines.

Look at the campaign sponsored threads currently in GD. There are no policy positions whatsoever. Just strung together quotes.

The media want a train wreck. They love Clinton when she's grumpy and "bitchy." They don't like her as much when she's cool and calm. A lot of this idiot sexism, or at least the media's tendency to play into sexist stereotypes. How many male cabinet members are described as bitchy?

JM

Then a 50/50 general election.

This is what they are trying to make happen.

Hillary is going to win the nomination and the general.

They know it. We know it.

There is no Obama this time.

What they are counting on, is the non-politically aware to fall for their antics.

They call it out as neck and neck all the way down the the wire.

"....and around the clubhouse turn it's McCain and Obama,...into the stretch it's Obama! McCain and Obama! McCain! Obama! And it's Obama!!!" (Then as an aside) "......by 70 lengths......."

This causes the public to throw money at their horse in a panic which then pays for more ads making the media richer.

Hillary is going to win the nomination and the general.

They know it. We know it.

I can't wait to see the fux "news" talking heads on election night when it hits them that Hillary Clinton is PRESIDENT!!!

mass media that turned a handful of Ebola cases into a national mass paranoia, not to mention two false, fake, lying wars costing millions of lives and almost ruining the national economy, or questioning Science itself, not be able to control any message?

Answer: the mass folks are with Clinton on ALL the issues that matter to them, the same issues the folks agree with Obama on....same popular message, new popular messenger.

Evolution takes time.

Revolution takes violence.

I prefer to give it time, Clinton will continue the evolution, over time.

Whether or not someone is "popular" would depend on what poll question you feel is a proxy for "popular".

Is "Would you vote for Clinton?" popular, or is there a lot of pragmatism involved?
Is "Admired" popular, or can people admire people they don't like?

To my mind, favorability is the closest proxy to popularity. She's got higher favorability than the other Democratic candidates, mostly due to the very large "don't know" of the other candidates while her "don't know" is miniscule. So you could argue that makes her "most popular".

But her unfavorability rating is higher than her favorability rating. So more people don't like her than like her. That would seem to cut against the claim of "popular" via favorability rating.

To herd people.
And while they call themselves scientific there is nothing scientific about judgment based on a tiny sampling.
He who controls the sampling controls the outcome...and he who controls the question controls the sampling.

I know because I read that on DU!

More like a moment.

a ...

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.l%2flYrKLU0gn1tSWVQQPCCA&w=129&h=100&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&pid=3.1&rm=2

and,

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=JN.k4tY4d72kOkFDT6gp88xxw&w=122&h=100&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&pid=3.1&rm=2

Moment ... typical of DU.

Popular is irrelevant when it’s regarding Hillary Clinton. But it’s not irrelevant when crowds show up for Bernie Sanders. OK – got it.

People also mention when Hillary starts (finally, they say) talking about the issues, she’ll start losing her support. Guess what – she is talking issues and she’s still popular.

I saw a poll over the weekend where Bernie was now at 15% but the pollster also said Hillary had INCRESASED her numbers. Seems both gained at the expense of others.

Also I noticed when O’Malley got into the race, the headlines were something to the effect – “A Second Person to Challenge Hillary Clinton.” Why not - “A Second Person to Challenge Bernie Sanders?”

You don’t like Hillary, fine – but quit trashing her.

It’s true – the more folks pile on, the more I dig in for Hillary!

That's a natural reaction...It's amazing some people here don't get it.


If I have been over the top in my effusive praise of St. Hillary it is only because of the over the top criticism of her.

FIXED

Popular is irrelevant when it’s regarding Hillary Clinton. But it’s not irrelevant when crowds show up for Bernie Sanders. OK – got it.

Funny how that works, eh?

I love her and have supported her for what seems like eons.

Overall, her favorability is a hair under 50%

Your OP is full of holes.

Hillary is one who is afaird of the corporate MSM

It's probably fair to say most Democrats love her, most Republicans hate her, and Independents are expectedly ambivalent.

don't like her either.

the less people hear about her, the more they like her - hence the strategy of campaigning by staying out of the media, not giving interviews, and interacting only in fully controlled settings

a link to this?

Or are you simply a dismissive male expressing his own opinion? Which you certainly have a right to do ....

that Gallup certainly has it right: Hillary IS one of the most admired women in the world. Our President Barack Obama is one of the most admired men.

Secretary Kerry - may he soon recover from his recent accident! - is also receiving more and more global admiration for the job that he is doing.

But of course, those who hate Hillary - and those journalists who want to sell their stories/please their corporate masters/promote themselves or their own agendas - will always try to convince people otherwise.

As for the 2016 Dem candidates (and I am very proud of Hillary, Bernie & Martin!), it is Hillary's global credibility that is one of her strongest attributes from my own POV. While the US has much to concentrate on domestically - and much it must do to remedy the debacles left everywhere by GOPer mismanagement, obstructionism, divisiveness, and plain old greed, foreign policy knowledge and experience are absolute requirements for a US leader in today's interconnected world.

That's the unvarnished truth. There's simply no longer time for on-the-job training in those areas.

She undoubtedly has vastly more experience in foreign relations than any candidate, Democrat or Republican. The importance of foreign relations is often neglected and overshadowed by national issues. Sanders is a powerful voice for the national issues and his input into the campaign is invaluable.

The Republicans are falling over themselves trying to adopt populous issues because of his challenge. Bernie won't let them get away with it and hammers them for their duplicity. I just hope that we stick together and welcome the dialog that our candidates are creating. I don't admire some of the indiscriminate bashing of Clinton any more than I would that of any Democratic candidate.

Thanks for your reply!

Some have better name recognition than others, but even right wing people who scream and run in terror at the word "socialist" find Bernie Sanders actually to be a likeable guy with positions they don't find abhorrent.

Hillary is very likeable in person, but she doesn't suffer fools lightly, and she knows full well that she is the favorite target of both the right wing propaganda machine and the tabloids that pass for MSM. Howard Dean is right when he says she doesn't grant them much access because she knows in advance what they will write, no matter what she says, so why waste her time? Roger Ailes said back when Fox Noise was founded, "we have an agenda." That "agenda" has spread to most of the American media, and no one is keeping it a secret.

O'Malley is new to the national scene, but he also has a solid record to stand on, and is likeable to boot.

NONE of the three Democrats (and I include Sanders here) spout nonsense, and THIS is the major difference between ALL three of them and ALL of the Republican candidates, declared and undeclared. The press doesn't like this, even if it likes them. They are smart, cool, and have positions that, depending on your personal situation and point of view, will move the country forward to some degree, depending on how much resistance they get from Republican obstructionists. The Democratic candidates will have good numbers among those who agree with them, and these numbers will be in rough proportion to their name recognition until the primaries and debates start in earnest. They will not stay where they are now. Speculation to the contrary will, (anyone doubt me?) be useless and a waste of perfectly good breath.