i eagerly await rimmy's "well, george bush paid gay hookers to ask questions" repost... http://web.grinnell.edu/sandb/questions.html [rquoter]Clinton aides plant student's question By PATRICK CALDWELL The Iowa caucuses are known for their “living-room chats” where ordinary Iowans can meet candidates face-to-face and talk about what interests voters. When candidates have larger events or make major policy speeches, the crowds are bigger, but there is often still an opportunity for questions. But under the pressures of major media coverage, with polls narrowing in Iowa, campaigns can potentially control questions and coverage by planning questions ahead of time. While no campaigns admit to this practice, at a recent Hillary Clinton campaign event in Newton, Iowa, some of the questions posed to the New York Senator were planned in advance, planting some audience members in the crowd. On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue. Reporters from many major national news outlets came to the small Iowa town, from such media giants as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and CNN. After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said. Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan. But the source of the question was no coincidence—at this event “they wanted a question from a college student,” Gallo-Chasanoff said. She also 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 before hand. Some of the questions asked were confusing and clearly off-message. The practice of planting audience members to ask specific questions does not appear to be a common practice, or at least not a politically acceptable one. “Our campaign does not plant questions,” said Lauren Rose, Communications Director for Governor Bill Richardson’s campaign. When asked what she would think of other campaigns who did plant audience members, Rose said, “I think campaigns should give Iowa caucus-goers the chance to ask the questions they want.” When asked if the John Edwards campaign employed such practices, Jenni Lee, Edwards’s Iowa Press Secretary said, “No, they ask whatever they want.” But the Clinton campaign also denied the practice of planting. “It’s not a practice of our campaign to ask people to ask specific questions,” said Mark Daley, Clinton’s Iowa Communications Director. Daley said that when an event is focusing on a specific topic, such as health care or Iraq, “people are encouraged to ask questions in these regards,” but denied that they are given specific questions. But when directly asked if his statements meant that planting does not occur in the Hillary campaign, Daley could only say, “to the best of my knowledge.” “[Planting] is not something that is encouraged in our campaign,” he said. The event in Newton was a particularly major policy speech, more informative than rallying. The campaign’s apparent tactics at this event may have little or no relationship with the questions at less formal campaign events. Other presidential campaigns were approached for comment on the topic, but no others responded before the paper went to press. Serving as a stark contrast to the Clinton event was Richardson’s campaign stop at Grinnell College the night before. Richardson’s appearance was designed as an opportunity for voters to interact with the candidate, and not the media event that Clinton held in Newton. In lower-profile events like Richardson’s (and most of Clinton’s) candidates face many challenging, presumably spontaneous questions.[/rquoter]
Actually, that would be more jo mama's province. But why even go there when it's so much easier to point out that Bush routinely restricted access to his appearances to people that signed pledges of loyalty to his campaign? He made damn sure there wouldn't be a single challenging question from an actual voter in his entire 2004 campaign. And if there was any question about a voter's loyalty he just had that voter arrested for trespassing. It must rock to be the emperor. On the Hillary thing, I'm glad she got busted. One more event in the worst week of the campaign cycle for her (not to mention the best week for Obama). Hopefully the recent events will lead to an Obama nomination. But even if they don't, Hillary's miles better than any of the pro-Iraq war, pro-torture candidates on the other side. In my opinion (and the opinion of most of the country) anyway. I know basso's with that tiny percentage of the country that still thinks the war was a great idea (LOL). Don't know where he stands on torture. He's been asked about a dozen times now and refuses to answer. Maybe he's for it and he's just too ashamed of himself to say so.
So, you fantasize about leather-clad dominant women, are fixated on gay guys in the White House, and can't quit mentioning me in your recent posts and threads. I don't know whether to be honored or horrified. At any rate, if this is true about Hillary... and it certainly appears to be... this is yet another reason why I'm not enamored with her candidacy. Looking at the wasteland of the last 7 years, we need a dramatically new direction. Hillary would be better than any Repub by several orders of magnitude, but these days, that is at best faint praise. That said, Hillary does not deserve the demonization and nasty speculation about her life that some want to throw around. I'll defend her on those things. And let's face it, a lot of the dislike she engenders is due to her being a woman. I think she's more than talented enough to not be the nominee on her own terms and as her own person with her own failings.
According to Swift Kids for Truth,(TM) Hillary is a man! Several kids testify to this fact. So questions aren't all she's a-plantin -- I tell you what!
Hillary is the consummate politician. She is miles ahead of your ol' boy Obama... Having said that, it causes me pause that you seem to discredit someone with vast indirect and direct federal government experience...Obama is a fresh face, but a better face would have been Harold Ford Jr. In the epic TN battle of Ford Jr. versus Corker it came down to only the fact Corker was the right kind of republican to win me over... Ford Jr. would have made Obama's persona seem as stiff and trite as Gore...Seriously, the democratic constituency needs to realize that far left is not where it's at...otherwise I would not rule out a shocker...if you know what I mean down the road. And don't misunderstand me, I am not saying Hillary is my ilk, but who else is the consummate politician? She stands out....Would she be above planting reporters ala the Bush administration at a disaster?...Sure,... if she hires better (which I'm sure she will). After this episode, the correlation seems similar and disturbing, but then the question again becomes can we count on Obama to have future appointees as well connected as Hillary's administration will be able to set forth?....If you are a blind partisan, you will say the democrats can do no wrong. If you want what's best for the country, you will salute Hillary,...If you want the best example of new leadership, you will take heed of what Ford Jr. can do for everyone irregardless of party affiliation... Take this from someone looking from the outside for what it is worth. Hillary is golden...Ford Jr. should be...Obama is nothing special... p.s..... I still think the war was a great idea had it been planned better. I blame Bush for that failing loud and clear...
That was bizarre even for you, ROXRAN. Why are you even bringing up Harold Ford? Because he's black like Obama? And why are you pushing him on me? I supported him against Corker. You voted for Corker. Seems a little weird you'd be trying to sell me Ford now. And you say first that if I'm a blind partisan, I'll find no wrong in Democrats (which I do all the time) and then you say that I shouldn't criticize Hillary. What??? Are you trying to get me to be a blind partisan? I've criticized every single major candidate running for president - on both sides - and you can be damn sure I'll criticize Hillary. It's obvious by your introduction of Ford into the debate that your problem with Obama is that there's a 'better' black Democrat out there. That is very weird and not a little racist, but I'll bite. Ford is a DLC Dem - the sort you seem to be pushing by your advice about Democrats not being too liberal. Guess what? He lost. We can argue over why. Maybe it's because he was so 'centrist' he didn't seem to stand for anything. Maybe it's because Tennesseans preferred an incompetent white guy over a clearly competent black one. I don't know. What I do know is this. On every major issue, the majority of Americans back the Democratic party platform and oppose the Republican party platform. From Iraq to Iran to the environment to health care to education to the economy to taxes to national security to terrorism to social security to energy to stem cell research to a woman's right to choose and down the line. Whether you like it or not, the center is not an even compromise between whoever is leading one party and whoever is leading the other. The center is defined by the opinions of the American people. And poll after poll has shown that, for more than a year, the American people favor policies endorsed by the Democrats. You can say liberal, you can say progressive, you can say whatever you want. The Democratic party platform is the center now.
Who else is a DLC democrat?,....that's right the consummate politician...The DLC is the way democrats should base themselves in collective ideology... It is more centrist in thought process, more reasoned, coincidentally Obama is on the outside looking in... http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137
Batman- do you have the courage of your convictions, to vote against the democratic machine, or do you only vote which way the polls tell you? and please highlight where you have "criticized" a democrat and endorsed a position help by a republican.
I've criticized Democrats (and especially the Democratic machine) probably a hundred times here. If I voted the way polls told me to I'm pretty sure that at least once in my lifetime I'd have voted for someone that actually became president. And I haven't. And I never claimed to have endorsed a position held by a Republican. I'm sure I've done so but it would have been in an instance where the Republican was bucking his own party because I disagree with every plank in that platform. I can't imagine there would be some honor in endorsing a thing I oppose. As for the courage of my convictions, that's hilarious coming from you. You've been asked over and over to state your position on torture and you're too scared or embarassed to do it. Yes, I have the courage of my convictions -- that's why I'll give you my position on any issue you can dream up. You won't. Even on something as big as torture. You can't even say you oppose (or god forbid support) our government ****ing TORTURING people. You're a joke. And if you even have convictions you're too ashamed of them to own up to them.
ROXRAN is obviously anti-negro, as are most repubs. Basso obviously hates all n- people. Not sure why this is at all surprising.
Sounds like my kid's Christmas Wish List... Why do you characterize being a moderate as standing for nothing? You and Rush... two birds of a feather!
I would totally disagree. The RNC is the mod party. Dem's are much more radical. You never hear cries of the Dem's being to moderate from their core but the republicans constantly get this. RINO (Repub in name only). Spending like drunk sailors. Pro immigration Gun control etc.
It would be nice if Hillary's campaign continued to spiral downward. I certainly hope that she is not the democratic nominee ever.
Oops! She did it again!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310417,00.html [rquoter]Clinton Campaign Accused for the Second Time of Planting a Question at a Public Appearance Sunday , November 11, 2007 By Major Garrett SIOUX CITY, Iowa — For the second time in as many days, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has had to deal with accusations of planting questions during public appearances, FOX News has learned. In a telephone interview Saturday, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, said he was approached by Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler to ask a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question on funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline. The encounter happened before an event hosted by Iowa State Sen. Gene Frais on a farm outside Fort Madison, Iowa. Clinton's Iowa campaign confirmed that one of its staff discussed questions with Mitchell before her April 2 event, but denied attempting to plant a pro-Clinton question. Mo Elliethee, spokesman for Clinton's campaign in Iowa, told FOX News that Hayler and Mitchell "had a previous relationship" and that a discussion about Clinton arose out of a normal conversation between two people who knew each other well. "They had a previous relationship and were talking before the event and the topic of the senator's position on Iraq came up and Geoffrey said he had some questions," Elliethee said. "Chris suggested Geoffrey ask a question." Mitchell, however, said that he and Hayler did not know each other personally before the event. "I had no previous relationship with him," said Mitchell. "I knew his name and by name only as someone who worked for Senator Evan Bayh. But we didn't know each other and I had never met him before this event." Mitchell said the Clinton campaign wanted to contrast Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama who had recently said the president would probably prevail in the Iraq funding battle with Congress. Mithell said he refused to ask the question. "I told Chris I had other issues I wanted to raise with Senator Clinton," Mitchell said. Asked what those were, Mitchell said, "I wanted to ask her why she voted for the Iraq war and why she didn't consider that a mistake." Mitchell said Hayler, the Clinton campaign worker, was unhappy with his response and moved on to other audience members. "I know he tried to have others ask that question," Mitchell said. Asked if the Clinton campaign denied Mitchell's unequivocal assertion that Hayler tried to plant a question about Clinton trying to stand up to Bush on Iraq war funding, Elliethee declined. "I'm not going to comment on what he said," said Elleithee said, referring to Mitchell. "I'm going to discuss what our interpretation is. They had a previous relationship, the subject came up and there's nothing more to it than that. It's not newsworthy. It's innocent. It's not yesterday." That was a reference to Clinton's campaign admitting, first to FOX News, that it planted a question on global warming at a Newton, Iowa, event on Tuesday. Click here to read a report on the Iowa incident. Ultimately, Clinton took no questions from the crowd at the Fort Madison event that Mitchell attended. Elliethee said the campaign ran out of time to take questions. Mitchell said he is an Obama supporter but cannot participate in the Iowa caucuses. Mitchell is a minister in Hamilton and said he was reluctant to come forward because of the scrutiny he and his congregation might receive. "But I thought this was important to get out and I want people to know what happened." When contacted by FOX News and read Clinton's interpretation of events, Mitchell said: "I stand by my story completely."[/rquoter]
To follow up on Batman's post the biggest problem with Harold Ford is that he lost. I'm sure the DNC would be pushing Ford and you would see him prominently featured if he had won. Ford definately seems like a good candidate and even if he isn't completely aligned with the liberal wing of the Dems. that hasn't prevented people like Webb or Tester from getting more visibility. I think the difference is they won and Ford lost. Ultimately what matters from the party's standpoint is how electable are the candidates.
