Planting questions in an audience

[dave29]

is an assault on free speech (and therefore the constitution), a propoganda technique (just ask Mr. Gannon), politically stupid (just ask Karl Rove), a manipulation of public trust (which I believe goes beyond the worst kind of politics), and a sign of a willingness to do anything to get elected (just ask GWB).

My two cents.

[blm]

1. Double that to 4 cents.....

because I agree.

[Tesha]

2. It's exactly what I would have expected from the Clinton political machine.

There *ARE* ways to assess character and general fitness
for office in a democracy and we've just seen a demonstration
of one of them.

Tesha

[emilyg]

7. They all do it.

[Tesha]

8. If Dean did it, it was done under my nose.

Ahh, the ever-popular "we're only doing what
those other guys were doing" defense.

If Dean did it, it was done under my nose.

Tesha

[Whisp]

10. sure they do.

and they're all on the same side as well, just not ours.

[roguevalley]

13. that is no excuse. it sucks

[emilyg]

15. I wasn't excusing it.

[roguevalley]

17. I wasn't addressing it to you. Sorry, honey. THis link stuff is killing me.

[Forkboy]

18. But by saying that you are excusing it.

:shrug:

[leftchick]

19. oh really?

where is your proof? If it were common practice there would be no uproar. It is indefensible to plant questions. Hillary is pathetic to resort to such tactics.

Remember how pissed off she was last month when she accused an Iowan of doing what she herself is guilty of, planting questions? What a fucking hypocrite. Just like bush! :puke:

<snip>

NEW HAMPTON, Iowa -- At a campaign stop here, Hillary Clinton sparred verbally for several minutes with a man who pressed her on her recent vote to call Iran's army a terrorist organization.

Randall Rolph, from nearby Nashua, asked why he should support Clinton's candidacy when she did not appear to have learned any lessons from having voted to authorize force in Iraq.

Clinton thanked him for the question and explained her Iran vote would lay the groundwork for using diplomacy and sanctions to pressure that government.

Clinton accused the man of being a plant who had been sent to ask the question, to which he took exception, saying the question was a result of his own research.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/07/400826.aspx

[DCKit]

3. Better than planting an entire audience like * does. nt

[fenriswolf]

4. but still worse then having no plants at all

murder is worse then assault, but assault is still wrong.

[dave29]

6. could you quantify for me, just how much better?

because I would like to know.

[Whisp]

11. I would like to know too!

so if bush has killed 1,000,000 Iraqi's for his corporate friends, and if Hillary gets 999,999 Iranians killed for her corporate friends - she's better! yay! vote Hill.

[bighart]

16. so as long as "we" are not as bad as "them"

it's all good? What a COP OUT.

[burythehatchet]

5. I would give her a pass

but then I learned she denied knowing anything about it.

[davsand]

12. Yeah, the denial bothers me more than the act itself.

I posted, essentially, this same comment in a thread in GD politics as well. I am not spamming, but I really think it is important that people realize how common it is that campaigns do this. Had she said, "Yep, I'm sure they did plant that question, because my campaign and I feel it is an important discussion to have" I'd have walked away feeling like she was running her campaign. Her denial of it is either an outright lie or else complete lack of control over her campaign, and either scenario is not one I want to see in a candidate at this level.

------

This kind of stuff goes on ALL the time in races from local level on up. Campaigns will often put "their" supporters up front for these town hall meetings or debates where they will be more likely to be called on. I have seen campaigns grab people and ask if they want to be on the TV or radio (and they ever so happily provide "suggested" (intelligent sounding) questions to ask. I have even seen campaigns go so far as to call and round up specific profile supporters to show up (minorities for example) for this kind of event. I just pretty much accept that a campaign does it as a matter of strategy.

You never put your candidate out front without prepping them with answers to likely questions, and without checking the room beforehand. By way of illustration, if you know you have the local president for NORML in the front row of a debate, and you have a local referendum for Med Use Marijuana in front of the voters, you pretty much have to expect that your candidate will get a question on the subject. You want to be sure your candidate has considered their position on the subject so they don't get rattled and say "Uhhh, Gee, I dunno what I think about that..." (your worst nightmare if you are handling a candidate but cause for celebration if it is the other guy who does it!)

It is also pretty common to do a prep with a candidate of typical questions you expect to hear in a given location because it saves you an enormous amount of grief later. The idea is to get them to a point where they can answer and not act like a deer in the headlights on the stuff that might be controversial. ("No, Mr Union guy, I do not support building a toxic waste dump in this location for the following reasons... I'd rather see it be built by your union guys over there..." Piss off Mr Union guy and your campaign money can dry up. Piss off the Dem base by supporting a toxic waste facility next to the local elementary school and you are screwed. The smart campaign will figure out the right answer AHEAD of time so they won't have to do damage control after the debate.

I dunno--maybe I have been at this crap for too long here in Illinois (where we indict a Governor on an average of every ten years!), but I am just not surprised at all with this.


:shrug:



Laura

[Whisp]

14. great post, thanks.

"Yep, I'm sure they did plant that question, because my campaign and I feel it is an important discussion to have"

would have been the best answer, as you say. but then All questions would be under suspicion,... erm, as they are now.
so sticky wicket.

[baldguy]

9. This will be an issue

As soon as the punditry starts criticizing Bush & all the other candidates who do it.

(Which will be never.)