Should candidates be blamed for what staffers, aides, and supporters say and do?

[Sparkly]

Poll question: Should candidates be blamed for what staffers, aides, and supporters say and do?

When a staffer, aide, or supporter says or does something controversial, should the candidate him/herself always necessarily be held to blame for it? Is it their responsibility if it wasn't said/done at their or their campaign's request?

And, either way, shouldn't there be a consistent standard for the candidate you support and the candidate you don't? (No option in the poll for "Yes in the case of Obama only" or "Yes in the case of Clinton only," although I thought about it!)

[babylonsister]

1. I'd say not necessarily, unless you see a pattern developing.

:think:

[MADem]

2. It depends on what you mean by "responsibility"

It isn't always their FAULT, but they are responsible for their staff's conduct, and if the staff is doing something wrong, they need to vigorously correct the behavior. When they go way off the ranch, you have to fire them.

[napi21]

4. You are right. My guess is that behind the scenes in ALL

campaigns there are a lot of "What the hell is wrong with you?" going on.

[Sparkly]

6. But it's also about supporters...

People who introduce them, speak about them, etc. -- not officially representing them.

[rox63]

8. They should not be introducing them if their statement hasn't been vetted by the candidate n/t

[MADem]

14. Staff and supporters are different. All you can do with a supporter is "disavow" really.

If the conduct or comment is egregious, you can "condemn."

[Kittycat]

15. I agree.

[Renew Deal]

3. There should be a maybe option.

It depends on who the staffer is and what they say.

[Sparkly]

5. That falls under "not necessarily." nt

[Renew Deal]

16. OK, and where do I find that?

[Sparkly]

20. "No, not always their responsibility." nt

[rox63]

7. Yes - The buck has to stop with the candidate

It's their campaign. If someone working for them says something outrageous, the candidate should take responsibility. Their staff speaks for the campaign when making public statements.

[Adelante]

9. Candidates are responsible for the overall tone of their campaigns

If they don't get the word down through the ranks, including staffers, campaign officials and surrogates, on what is acceptable or unacceptable messaging, they are negligent or they are working a strategy. That said, it is always possible a supporter can trip over his or her tongue without the candidate deserving heat on it. It depends on the situation. But. I don't think the campaign has to request anything, at some point along the way, once there is an accumulation of message. The surrogates know what they are supposed to be doing. That works for all campaigns.

I voted Other, Sparkly.

[ShortnFiery]

10. If you covertly encourage "dirty tricks" OR can NOT control your subordinates during a campaign ...

then IMNSHO, you don't QUALIFY to be President of The Most Powerful Nation on Earth.

What freaks me out is that I did not see The Clinton's TRUE COLORS until HRC hijacked her husband's power base and is shamelessly riding "the perpetual victim" train in order to garner more votes.

I can only hope and pray that the American People WAKE UP and SEE the filth and corporate corruption that runs this Clintonian DLC campaign of lies and half-truths.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. It's not

always the candidate's fault, but ultimately, it's his responsibility.

But the outrage over some of this stuff is ridiculous, and the way people's titles get elevated is amazing. Campaign workers become campaign managers, volunteers become staff, people who introduce them at rallies become "surrogates". It's dumb.

[Didereaux]

12. I'd say how a candidate responds to the problem is most important!

[southernleftylady]

13. The buck should stop with them.. get them ready for when they are prez. nt

[ixion]

17. They are the 'captain' of their campaign

as such, they are responsible, IMO.

If they try and dodge responsibility, they're not a good leader... also my opinion.

[stillcool]

18. A supporter is responsible

for what they say. A candidate who repeatedly uses an inflammatory and false statement, is responsible for the consequences. Cause and effect.

[rox63]

19. There are no "accidents" - Clinton is using race-baiting as a campaign strategy

Found this on TPM:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063544.php

Rope-A-Dope
01.13.08 -- 9:54PM
By Josh Marshall

TPM Reader ML on the fracas ...

I think that the Clintons' anti-Obama strategy is more subtle than commentators are realizing. It is in the nature of a "provokatsiia", as the Russians say. Cuomo didn't utter the phrase "shuck and jive" without forethought; nor did Clinton bring up LBJ and MLK on the spur of the moment. Both are experienced street-fighting politicians who don't say that kind of thing to the press without thinking it through. Such comments are a provocation, waving a red cloak in front of the Obama people. When they respond angrily with charges of racism, suddenly they look like Jessie Jackson redux... just the kind of angry, militant black folks who scare white people (btw I think black anger and militancy are completely understandable... this is just a point about how much of the white public reads such charges of racism). Then the Clintons deny responsibility.

The whole point was to get the Obama people to respond angrily, which they did. Clintons win.

[Sparkly]

21. But who is responsible for how the Obama campaign responded?

The Clintons?

This is what I'm saying. I think there should at LEAST be a single standard applied consistently.