Do Campaigns Routinely Plant Questions?

Source: CBS



According to Dan Schnur, however, such tactics are typical for campaigns -- and not just Clinton's. Schnur was John McCain's communications director in the 2000 campaign and now teaches at University of California, Berkeley and The University of Southern California.

"I don't think in either party I've ever seen a campaign that holds question and answer events that doesn't arrange for some questions," says Schnur. "That's not to say every question is prepared. That's not to say the candidate knows every question coming. But it's pretty standard practice."




But if all campaigns use these sorts of tactics, why is Clinton being singled out?

"Every candidate faces one double standard or another, especially if it reinforces the preexisting impressions about that candidate," says Schnur. "There is already a suspicion among the first concentric circles of politics that Hillary Clinton is over-programmed, so this becomes a bigger story for her than it would for (Barack) Obama or (John) Edwards."








Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/politics/printable3496586.shtml

---

Excellent, excellent piece. Whenever a story like the planted question comes up about Hillary, I am immediately mindful of the “Clinton Rules” of journalism that say you can only report on the unseemly business of everyday politics if a Clinton does it, thus reinforcing the idea a Clinton is particularly unseemly for playing by the same rules.

This piece 1) admits a double standard (while trying to justify), 2) says double standard exists because she's the front runner AND it reinforces CW about the candidate 3) that this is an unseemly but widespread tactic all politicians use.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to see if Edwards and Obama have planted questions, after going after her?

voters?

if you have no intention to represent voters, you don't have to actually listen to what they have to say.

see? simple. As soon as we accept that voters have no part in the electoral process, the quicker we can get to the goal of complete facsism.

and saying "everyone does it" does not excuse it.

the point of a representative govt. is for our representatives to LISTEN TO US, not to perform a sort of Kabuki theatre abstraction of pretending to listen to us.
(no offense to Kabuki theatre)

There are some planted questions that could cause major ethical problems. However, this question was so basic and direct, that it is ridiculous to try to make too much about it.

The question was: "As a college student, I am concerned about global warming. What are you going to do about it?" That type of question is asked every day.

if a candidate is scheduled to speak for a certain length of time, and then a Q&A session afterwards, maybe a planted question about a legitimate issue the candidate did not cover during their speech isn't a bad thing. provided that the audience still has enough time to ask more of their own questions.

just my 2 cent opinion.

has people in the crowd to prompt applause, and to make sure specific questions get asked. Only so much can be put in a stump speech, so additional issues are addressed in the Q & A session. It's not ethical, but it has been done since day one. The advance team, or the host will make sure supporters are up front and that they are all on the same page.
Campaigning is show business.

Your candidate has just traveled for two hour to get to an event where you're expecting 800-1200 people. Its set to take an hour, with your candidate speaking for 30-45 min, then have 20-25 min for questions & answers. With the limited time, you'd want the questions to hit the 3-4 major issues for your candidate with 2-3 for other issues.

Its reasonable to assume that in such a large group that several people will want to ask the some of the same questions, so the person selected by the campaign to ask the question should be able to do it clearly & quickly.

After an hour though, the whole road show has to be packed up & ready to move to the next event.



All campaign managers MANAGE the campaign. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they succeed sometimes.

I have no issues. But to act like it's a student's question, when its not is disingenuous. Same goes for all candidates.

There is so much back and forth... ugh, it's maddening.

even against Hillary or Edwards. The tip thing is just stupid, say what you will about Hillary or her campaign staff but I REALLY doubt they would stiff anyone on purpose. Why is that story still circulating? Same goes for this story.

But yeah... like there aren't enough issues to discuss? :crazy:

:hi:

but obviously not.

do this, as well as "planting" people to start applause, etc.

I could understand being mad if all of the questions were arranged beforehand, or being furious if they planted the people asking the questions... but asking if someone will ask a particular question isn't dishonest in my opinion. That person was a college student, and probably did care about global warming. It's also a question that one could reasonably assume could be asked, not a Jeff Gannon type of softball question phrased like "We all know you care about global warming, but I want to know what color of shoes you are going to wear at the party when the global warming problem is solved in your first term".

I love and hate Hillary. Hate her because she plays the game. Love her because there's finally somebody who can play the game from our side.

Politics is unseemly. It is only a story if Clinton does it. Those against Hillary's candidacy then use the fact that she does unseemly but standard political tricks in an effort to get people to vote for their "virtuous" candidate who engages in the same unseemly practices, but has the added unseemly hypocrisy of attacking opponents for their sins.

I don't like this. I think the press corps should have been pointing this out all along. I think it's a double standard that they've started pointing it out now as if Clinton is somehow special in all this. Now that they've done so, it's they are now obligated to point out any politician who does so -- and it is a HUGE story now, in my opinion, if Obama, Edwards or Romney are found to in any way influence questions.

Do we condemn this practice or hold our nose? I don't care, so long as we're consistent, and make sure people are blamed based on the offense, not on who they are.

Stop the insanity. Stop the 24 hour news garbage wagon picking everything apart to mask the real issue: Bush is killing people while candidates have college students ask planted questions. I'm trying to figga what's worse.

say I was never asked to do anything like this nor did I see/hear of anything unethical occur. I believe it is the responsibility of each candidate to see their team plays fairly.

Hillary did a similar planted question (and got caught) in 1999. You would think that she would have learned from her lesson (of getting caught, especially since the Dem made *'s use of it an issue.

Who has worked on campaigns, and how often does this sort of thing occur? Just out of curiosity.

Very different.

What does that make Hillary?

A dishonest rightist with a token (D) next to her name?

And before I get a bunch of hotheads in a tizzy, let me just say, "No, she's not a Republican."

But she is a corporatist-rightist, with serious problems in the honesty department.

As I said yesterday, it is fairly common for a campaign to "place" people with specific topics in the audience (just as it is common for special interest groups to plant people to ask specific questions that they want to see covered.) In many cases it is more a matter of making sure your candidate gets the points covered that the campaign is needing to hit. Sometimes it is a matter of damage control--making sure your candidate doesn't get caught by surprise with a controversial or "hot button" issue. I have seen it done pretty routinely in local races as well.

What I find so problematic is the denial of it. That indicates either a dishonesty or else a lack of control of your campaign--and neither of those scenarios is something you want to see out of a candidate at this level.

I expect this one is probably not a big deal to most voters when it is all said and done, but it really does create a distrust in some people's minds. It could be enough to sway the vote to somebody else in a few cases, and that is a serious mis-step in a pretty close race like the Iowa caucus. It might end up costing a few percentage points that the campaign can ill afford to give up.

I do want to say, however, that I am in Illinois where corruption and dirty politics are a way of life for both parties. It isn't pretty but it is a reality.

Regards!




Laura

I thought she said that it did happen and that it would be taken care of.

I put the question out to people who have worked on other campaigns. We know the lengths Republicans go, but curious as to how much this is ignored when it's not Hillary. Here's your answer: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3718674&mesg_id=3718674

Honestly, this cuts to Obama's and Edward's credibility to make a lot of this, if they know it's this commonplace. They better hope they don't do this. (Romney, too).

Based on what republicans get away with.

Like when Clinton (Bill) was running in 1992 and the ditz asked him if he was a boxers or briefs man.

Nothing like having a typical American ask the most pressing thing on her mind. :dunce: :silly:

Rarely do you witness them ever ask something off the cuff, or a tough question that we here at DU would ask. And when those sort of questions do get through, they dance around the question or ignore it completely.