Clinton Camp Admits To Planting Questions

[sabra]

Source: ABC News

Eloise Harper Reports: The Clinton campaign has admitted to planting questions in Iowa. They have confirmed that a campaign staffer approached a student to ask Sen. Clinton a question about global warming during a campaign stop at a biodiesel plant in Newton, Iowa, on Nov. 6.

The story was first reported by Patrick Caldwell, a junior at Grinnell College and the features editor of The Scarlet and Black college newspaper. He reported that student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff was approached by the campaign to ask a question. She told the reporter that "they wanted a question from a college student." She also said that she "noted that staffers prompted Clinton to call on her and another who had been approached before the event, although Clinton used her discretion to select questions and called on people who had not been prepped beforehand. Some of the questions asked were confusing and clearly off-message."

Clinton Campaign spokesperson Mo Elleithee tells ABC News that "on this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Sen. Clinton's energy plan at a forum. However, Sen. Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again."

The staffer still remains with the Clinton campaign and they would not reveal his or her name. The campaign did not comment on whether this is the only time they have planted questions among audience members.



Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/clinton-camp-ad.html

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. If the staffer was open about it, what's the kerfuffel? The person could choose to ask, or not.

It doesn't seem that it's subversive or very worthy of the what will probably be the wailing, gnashing of teeth and rendig of garments howls that will inevitably be coming from the RW'ers when Rush or FAUX spoonfeeds this non news item to them. MKJ

[rodeodance]

yes, the media makes it sound as if they somehow forced the question

on the student.

stupid

[DrFunkenstein]

77. A Political Operative Pressured a Young Girl Into Dropping Her Question

In favor of a more "convenient" question for the candidate, clearly showing that the candidate is not interested in revealing herself for public scrutiny in the least.

Couple this incident with several episodes from Clinton, including killing an mildly critical GQ article, kicking the press off the campaign bus, refusing to open up her records from the years in the White House that she touts, laughing off or just ignoring questions she doesn't like, bullying campaign donors and others from any wavering, and a general air of secrecy and contempt towards the electorate.

Although she has not gone on the record about executive powers (of course), her aides have openly said that she is in favor of expanding - not retracting - the questionably powers grabbed by the current administration.

I know that we are not supposed to criticize these tactics and positions, because any criticism only emboldens our enemies.

Sound familiar?

[rodeodance]

13. yes, the media makes it sound as if they somehow forced the question

on the student.

stupid

[NOVA_Dem]

24. I can already see the SNL skit...Oh wait it's been done...

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/01/hillary.html

[MethuenProgressive]

25. Every candidate does it. They call on people pointed out by staff.

So Joe County Commisioner, Jane School Commitee, and little Timmy grandchild of donor get some mic time. Much ado, from the ususals, about not much.

[rucky]

28. As long as they're upfront about being deceptive.

:eyes:

Here's an idea - don't give the pundits ANY illusion of high-ground.

[IndianaGreen]

55. What this shows is that Hillary engages in same tactics as Bush

I don't know about you, but I've enough of being manipulated and being played for a fool by politicians.

It is time to turn the page, not return to the past.

[Demeter]

2. The Honest Way to Handle It Would Be a Press Conference or a Major Speech in the Senate

Too sneaky to be honest and use integrity, not smart enough to avoid detection. Not a good sign.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

15. LOL.

Most excellent observation! :toast: MKJ

[Auggie]

17. Indeed. Not a good sign.

[Captain Hilts]

3. This is how campaigns work. Nothing new. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Can You Cite Specifics?

Other than Bush?

Link or slink.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Looks Like We Have A Slink

I never heard of this before Bush. Hillary is a fast learner.

[ldf]

19. oh please.

hillary is certainly not my first choice, but there is a big difference between bush having someone like jimmy/jeff ask softball questions in order to divert more important/unwanted questions, and having someone ask a question (because no one else has asked anything similar) to allow a solution/viewpoint be put forward.

BIG difference.

geez.

much ado about absolutely nothing, but par for the course for the hillary bashers.

[leftist_not_liberal]

20. No difference at all but enjoy your koolaid.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

26. Welcome to DU, yeah, that was a real "koolaid" response there.

Subtlety is not your strong suit, I see. :hi: MKJ

[dkf]

21. Sounds manipulative...I'm so surprised...NOT!

[MannyGoldstein]

4. You Clinton Haters Won't Let Up, Will You?

This is probably the first time that the Clintons have done this - Hillary is too honest and spontaneous to let something like this happen.

I'm tired of the press picking on Hillary - why haven't we seen any stories about how Obama has not given most of his money to orphans? Think it's a coincidence?

[frogcycle]

6. oh give me a break

I was about to post that i saw nothing whatever wrong with staffers "working the crowd" and suggesting topics. It's not like they gave the kids scripts, or paid them, and it says the candidate didn't know what questions individuals might ask. Sounds like business as usual for ANY well-run campaign.

Then you have to claim it has never happened before and the woman is too holier-than-thou to stoop so low, and accuse anyone who mentions it of being "hillary haters"

YOU are the biggest detriment to her campaign.

edit: upon rereading your post i see it was sarcasm

ne-ver mind! :)

[mckeown1128]

31. You sound like fox news

you just substitute bush haters for clinton haters to discredit any legitimate criticism of your candidate of choice. Ohh and quit whinning.... the press has all but sworn in Senator Clinton already...

[Redneck Socialist]

42. Bwahahahaha!

Hillary is too honest and spontaneous to let something like this happen.

That's freakin' hilarious!

It's a standard campaign practice, nothing more than an attempt to control the message. Every campaign does this.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

51. *snort!* Thanks for the chuckle! n/t

[conservdem]

68. Maybe the "Clinton Haters" have legitimate grounds to

dislike and distrust her.

[PATRICK]

7. ABC news

a watchdog of trivialization. This is such minor crap. The issue here is how ALL Dems can fight back at the media presentation of the party as a whole because this is the hemlock most of the nation is forced to drink every day.

You mean if they stop talking about my candidate's $400 dollar haircut he doesn't matter anymore?

[kurth]

8. Amateurish child's play compared to the $2.6 Billion in taxpayer dollars

the chimp spent to spread his lies since 2003.

[Robbien]

9. How is this any different than what FEMA did

Clinton has fake student questions. FEMA just faked reporters supplied with pre-screened questions.

If Clinton wanted to discuss a topic than discuss it. Nope, not her. She has her staff plant the question using up very valuable time which was supposed to be alloted for what WE care about not what SHE wanted it viewed we care about.

FEMA, Clinton. I don't see the difference.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

14. It was real student, not a staffer acting like a student. The Clinton staffer was open about it,

FEMA tried to hide it.

Oh, and our tax dollars paid for the FEMA deception.

MKJ

on edit, I agree that the questions should be unscripted, but there are real differences between the two events.

[Robbien]

16. Bull. The intent was the same. Sneakily making the question period

not a real question period but a scripted question period.

Ignore what the people what to know and just talk about what Bush/Clinton want people to know. Both kick out people who ask questions which target areas they don't want discussed.

Same result. And both hide the fact. Clinton didn't own up to the fact until the student made it public (this time). It wasn't until her office got inundated with questions that much later she finally owned up.

Sneaks.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

18. Well, I won't compare the two and say they're exactly the same.

Defining intent is where I veer from your analogy. I think the FEMA intent was to deceive and probably cover up their utter ineffectiveness and probably more, where I think the staffer wanted Sen. Clinton's latest policy on global warming to be spotlighted.

But, that's the thing with trying to define intent, neither you nor I know for sure, so we can only speculate.

However, I completely agree that where they converge in similarity is that the questions were not unscripted and spontaneous, when the appearance said otherwise.

I think it's also going to get lots of play in RW world, as will ANY campaign mistep by ANY of the Dems, and we'll be feeding the machine, just like we're doing right now.


MKJ

[Robbien]

32. What makes me even more uncomfortable

is that everything Clinton may or may not do is always and forever supported and defended by many here at DU. It is a lot like going over to freeperland and reading about the absolute mind numbing Bush support.

If Bush had done (and has done) this fake audience participation period, these same DUers would have been all over it saying how fake and false and scared of the American people Bush is. But since Clinton did it, well then that's okay.

So, now you are saying all DUers should put their blinders on and give their support over to your candidate because RWers will be criticizing it enough for everybody. Don't be a thinking knowledgeable human being you say, just be a Clinton dittohead defending her in everything she does.

This action of hers was fake. She said she will answer questions of the people. Instead, she took the people's time and sneakily used it for her own purposes. If she wanted to talk about a certain subject then she had the floor during her speech, she should have talked about it. But no, she lied when she opened up to questions. No opening up here at all.

[cuke]

35. What a stupid post, loaded with selective faux outrage

I can't believe you're complaining that a candidate for president has some rabid supporters who will never admit their candidate did any wrong.

Almost EVERY candidate has their rabid supporters who won't admit any mistakes. Obama has them, Edwards has them, Biden has them, Kucinich has them, etc

And you don't say a word about them

[Robbien]

36. SOP diversionary tacitic

1) Say the poster is over hyping
2) Whine that the poster is unfair to the candidate. Don't look at the topic under discussion, go complain about the others.

My response to that SOP tactic is not to be diverted from my stance.

Clinton opened up for audience questions
Clinton's staff supplied questions
FAKE

[cuke]

37. Not explaining why you single out Clinton supporters is avoidance

ALL candidates have their rabid supporters

[Robbien]

40. This is

a Clinton thread.
This thread is about Clinton's sneaky deception.
This thread is about DUers mindlessly excusing Clinton's actions.

Where in this thread did one of the other candidates do something for which I should be complaining about their supporters?

[cuke]

47. So let's review what you said to see if it was on topic

"What makes me even more uncomfortable is that everything Clinton may or may not do is always and forever supported and defended by many here at DU. It is a lot like going over to freeperland and reading about the absolute mind numbing Bush support."

"The thread is a Clinton thread" - your comment is not about Clinton. It's about DUers

"This thread is about Clinton's sneaky deception." - your comment is not about Clinton. It's about DUers'

"This thread is about DUers mindlessly excusing Clinton's actions." - Umm, didn't you just say this thread was about Clinton?

[Robbien]

48. The illogic

of your argument is just growing by leaps and bounds.

Keep on keeping on with your idol worship. I'm getting off this crazy train.

peace

[cuke]

49. Still no explanation

Cant find any good reason for your selective outrage, huh?

Can't explain why in one sentence you say "This is a Hillary thread" and in another that it's about Clinton supporters?

[mwb970]

73. You guys remind me of this.

http://maxxwolf.tripod.com/woody.html

[nashville_brook]

44. "You people will support that which they help create" -- sign in airport security office.

it's the politics of personal investment. in for a penny, in for a pound.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

45. bingo. Exactly.

as though she were queen and incapable of being analyzed.

[leftist_not_liberal]

69. Precisely. n/t

[leftist_not_liberal]

22. Two Words

Mark Penn

[cuke]

38. Well, now we know you can count

[leftist_not_liberal]

62. Self delete

I see by your other posts why you are being a smart ass to me now. Nevermind.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

74. dumb... there must be other ways to get a topic raised

[liberal N proud]

10. Just like the current regime!

Fake questions
And this is what America wants? NO, just the corporate pigs and their media whores

[peace13]

11. Once again the bar has been lowered.

Just because Bush does it does not make it right. You go Hillary...

[leftist_not_liberal]

23. Recommended

Why is it that to be considered "electable" one must be Orwellian?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

27. Just out of curiousity, what exactly are you "not_liberal" about?

MKJ

[leftist_not_liberal]

39. I identify as a communist

I do not believe reform is possible, though of course I do vote progressive and pursue progressive activism.

:hi:

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

52. So, liberal principles are something which you actively oppose?

Those that recognize the inherent rights of individuals as well as those that presume a society is lifted when it cares for the least among us?

MKJ

[leftist_not_liberal]

53. Not at all.

I think liberalism is a weak facsimile of what is necessary to lift up the least among us. Many folks have a grave misconception about what communists think. If anything, most are liberals on steroids where the poor are concerned. As a matter of fact, I have spent the morning reorganizing my garage to stack in all the worldly possessions of a man I only met last week was lost his home as of last night.

I too am currently unemployed and have fed this person and, if I could, would be housing him too.

I hold my nose and vote dem, but in my ideal world this would be a typical day of reporting about our candidates:

Quote:
Wearing a red bandana and a Che Guevera T-Shirt autographed by Hugo Chavez, Clinton introduced her “fellow-travelers on the road to American and world socialism.” Her new “comrades” and fellow Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama (sporting a new black beret and dashiki), John Edwards (wearing a vintage Soviet Red Army jacket purchased from a Russian clothier), Bill Richardson (dressed as Fidel Castro and sporting a Cuban cigar), Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd joined her on the stage of a high school auditorium to unveil a new 10-point plan “to overthrow private ownership in the means of production and distribution” and to establish “workers’ control.”



Quote:
Edwards dried a tear from his eyes as he read a passage from Leon Trotsky’s 1905 pamphlet “Results and Prospects.” Embracing Trotsky’s theory of “permanent revolution,” the former North Carolina Senator confirmed suspicion that his “two Americas” theme of class inequality is inspired by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels’ famous 1848 pamphlet The Communist Manifesto.



Quote:
“I’m not sure there’s all that much difference between the old Democrats and their new ‘Marxist’ packaging,” Kucinich said. “I am their one man Krondstadt Rebellion,” Kucinich added, telling reporters to “read your Soviet history.”
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14243

As for my opinion about liberalism generally, I think it plays a similarly ineffective role in today's America as it did in 19th century Russia. But, as we say down in Texas, you gotta dance with who brung ya.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

54. If you hold that opinion of liberalism, why are you here?

Seriously.

You have declared it ineffective and flaunt this opinion in your screen name. Yet, it is the party platform of the Democratic Party.

I'm seriously asking, since your proletariat vision will never come, at least in this lifetime.

I don't doubt that many of us display caring and compassion in our personal lives, including you.

However, if you have to hold to your nose to vote for anyone other than a Communist, again, I ask, why are you here?

You could go dance with the Greens, or Libertarians. MKJ

[cuke]

56. Some posters dem affiliation befuddles me

Last week a poster said that the RNC and the DNC combined represented only 4% of the population, so I asked why he would want to call himself a dem. He got all bent out of shape.

[leftist_not_liberal]

60. That does seem a rather small number

but it is however true that the activist community and the politicians comprise only a tiny fraction of the citizenry here in our egregiously depoliticized country.

I really admire the community councils Hugo Chavez is setting up because they will draw in the mass of the population into active and attentive participation in governance, and that is what democracy should look like.

Of course our richest few could never countenance that, lest the empire fall and our Rome crumble.

[leftist_not_liberal]

59. You're seriously answering, since my proletariat vision will never come, at least in this lifetime.

I don't vote for Greens, etc. unless it represents a pragmatic choice. At the national level, such a vote is today virtually -never- pragmatic. Doesn't that make sense, no matter what my political leanings?

Does this place not have some terrific content and discussion? Why not be here?

I'll remind you that in very nearly EVERY other modern democracy there is an active, participating and In Office Communist Party. America bein ghte beating heart of capitalist globalization that it is, the country's people have over the last hundred years been utterly brainwashed to reflexively hate communists who are indeed the fully flowered, very real left. The snarky comments and occasional outright attacks I have gotten from a number of DUers merely for my honesty as reflected in my screen name reflects as poorly on liberals and their political knowledge and pragmatism as does the craven and consistent capitulation that has marked the 110th congress.

Given that I take a very long view relative to most folks of politics and historical development, it is not as hard for me to grasp what I must do as it is for some of my dyed-in-the-wool brethren to see why I am not an enemy - that is, except to the extent that I urge a degree of progress that would disempower the upscale, self-righteous liberals who have personal rackets to protect to the exclusion of the little people so many of our leaders play to but really do little for.

I do appreciate your reasoned questions and hope I have been able to give ample answer to them.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

63. Appreciated your extensive answer. One question to which you have not responded ,though, is my first

Which liberal policies do you eschew, in order to describe yourself as "not liberal"?

You've been clear about your political leanings, which begs the question why not the screen name, "Leftist Communist" rather than "not liberal", but to each their own, no?

It's an inflammatory name on site which embraces the liberal party and your responses are un supportive of any Democratic presidential candidates, for whom, you've made clear, it will be an offensive process for which to vote, whoever the nominee will be.

Of course there's wonderful discussion here, no argument here.

MKJ

[leftist_not_liberal]

66. For me it'll be either Kucinich or Edwards

though I have concerns one is a new age whacko and the other a poseur who keeps company I do not approve of.

Rather than "inflammatory," how about "provocative?" I am of the opinion that the left/right dichotomy as discussed in this nation is not a dichotomy at all but rather is a side show of consumer choice "issues" about things like fags and fetuses while the cancer of capitalism is sold by all. Thus, I do not see liberalism as real leftism. Left v. Right is an economic argument; the rest is divide and conquer bullshit served up by the ruling class and its wholly owned media. Further, I really don't think Hillary or even Bill Clinton even qualify as liberals, not any more than LIEberman...

I think it is offensive that we have a corporate duopoly that does not give a good goddamn about their people relative to their millionaire friends and corporate masters. For instance, last night's and today's news cycle has been about the 'settlement' by the crime syndicate called Merck which knowingly killed people for profit. What about a fucking death penalty for corporations and not for people? You'll never hear that discussed in polite circles, but willful institutional murder is glossed over in the lala land that passes for media and corporate justice. Meanwhile people are starving. The reality demands more than feel good rhetoric from pandering selfish politicians. You'll note Obama has already shown his fealty to the our little client state in the middle east, his hawkishness on the non-threat that is Iran (a regime in place one hundred percent because of vicious American imperialism) and who has become a millionaire in the last two years.

No one with a million dollar net worth should be allowed to participate in governance (as they by definition are NOT a representative vox populi) and no one should be in office more than a, oh say, a decade. Millionaire careerism passing for democracy does make me sick. So shoot me. What can I say but what I believe to be the truth?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

72. You make for good reading, I'll give you that.

Perhaps you could point some of your erudite and pointed critiques at the candidates of the non liberal party, while spending time here.

MKJ

[leftist_not_liberal]

76. No worries, friend

that is a given, so much so as to, yes, rise to the level of being unnecessary to speak really. Yet I do, and I will.

[leftist_not_liberal]

61. One other comment though in re: "individualism"

That is absolutely -nothing- but a bourgeois concept build on the foundation of property. The less property a person has, the less they enjoy the thoroughly bourgeois luxury of enjoying their 'individualism.'

It is all about US. Every bad thing in our communities and world goes to this issue, the propertied classes exploiting those who are less so (and it other parts of the world often completely propertyless other than a few rags and maybe a cooking pot or two. You can bet those folks don't spend much time 'self actualizing').

For most of human history, the individual was for the great mass of men something completely unknown - just like fences. And, after this necessary but vicious period of human development, one day that will again be so, thus my chosen sigfile and what I consider The One Liner of Marxism.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

64. Ah, the bourgeois Constitution.

Quaint, that, eh?

MKJ

[leftist_not_liberal]

67. I was really not referring to the constitution

but you are quite as right as Jefferson was at the dusk of his famous correspondence with Adams when he said that surely it would take the people of this nation at least 200 years to actually enjoy the (limited, imo) rights they were given 50 years earlier...

[hughee99]

29. Come on everyone...

this is only an issue when repukes do it. They do it to deceive us, our candidates just do it to inform us. :sarcasm:

Of course, now when someone talks about how well Hillary did answering questions from a group of <fill in constituency here>, I'll wonder if maybe isn't not because she's just so knowledgeable about the issues, but about the questions.

[Colobo]

30. I expected this.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. Dumb! There are plenty of less sleazy ways to get a topic raised

[illinoisprogressive]

34. Business as usual with the Clinton camp

[Redneck Socialist]

41. Standard campaign practice.

All campaigns try and control the message. One way to do that is to bring supporters to events and have them ask the questions you want to have asked. Any campaign that has any semblance of an organization does this.

[calteacherguy]

43. I don't see anything wrong with this as an Obama supporter. Obviously, she feels threatened

by Obama's popularity with college students and is trying to improve her standing among them.

I see this as a good sign, from my perspective. She's worried enough about it to send staffers out to find college students in her audience (of which there probably aren't very many).

[otohara]

46. Remember When A Reporter In Iraq Couldn't Ask Rumsfeld A Question

So he worked with one of the soldiers who asked that oh so important question about armor for Humvees? We liked that as I recall. This sounds like an over zealous staffer, eager to get Clinton's global warming answer out there.

n a related development, it was revealed Thursday that a reporter claims to have helped the soldier prepare the question directed at Rumsfeld. The Poynter Institute, a news media think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla., published on its Web site an e-mail attributed to reporter Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press, which states that Pitts worked with the soldier because he was not allowed to question Rumsfeld himself.

“Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have,” said the e-mail, which was sent to newspaper colleagues.

“I have been trying to get this story out for weeks — as soon as I found out I would be on an unarmored truck,” the e-mail said.

The Defense Department issued a written statement Thursday night saying it was “unfortunate” if a member of the press “pressured” Army Spc. Thomas Wilson to ask the question. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/

[mrreowwr_kittty]

50. I don't see this as a big deal. And we all know nothing is a big deal on DU unless Obama does it.

[cuke]

57. ABC turns Clinton staffer "suggests" into Clinton "plants"

and DUers suck it up without question

[ginchinchili]

58. Great. Just what we need, another fake leader.

[gateley]

65. When a candidate "suggests" questions, it indicates to me that said candidate

is more concerned with being able to present his/her platform rather than a sincere desire to find out what is important to the people.

I understand Hillary herself wasn't out there soliciting plants, but if an over-zealous staffer felt it was okay to do, that might reflect the general campaign attitude to do whatever it takes.

I can't help but think staffers in some of the other campaigns wouldn't dare use such a tactic, knowing their candidate wouldn't stand for it.

[ginchinchili]

71. Very true. And this "blaming the staffer" excuse is getting a little bit old for me.

It's just too easy for the campaign manager to arrange these kinds of questionable activities and if the staffer gets caught, job well done but you'll have to leave now. Case closed. It's happening more and more frequently. The buck stops with #1.

[Joe the Revelator]

70. Yet another bad day for Team Hillary

It's amazing how the polish has come off since Halloween.

[usregimechange]

75. Cheneyish