Clinton campaign's "amateur mistake"

Clinton Campaign Plants Question at Iowa Event:



Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

I just hit the post button, and one of the threads it listed was about this subject. Did you look at that list before posting, or did you forget to do so in your excitement?

on edit: And there are four other threads on the 1st page about this. Did you even look?

Doesn't have to be true, doesn't have to be important, just has to be repeated often enough.
"Clinton the bad tipper had her cats killed."

someone needs to develop a thicker skin, or kindly debunk the post, if the poster thinks it is erroneous. And that involves work, instead of whining. So get to work, because if your candidate becomes the nominee, the campaign is going to get that much tougher. That is part of the point of having a primary -- practise.

And, stop equating DUers to the RNC, when you don't like what they have to say.

No consideration for DUers? There are rules and they werent put in place because Skinner is a wannabe Nazi. They're to help encourage reasonable discussion.

Repeating oneself over and over is not reasonable or considerate of your fellow DUers. I didn't complain about the 1st three, but when you start a new thread, DU lists the recently started threads for a reason

quelle surprise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

Just in case you needed a REAL example instead of the mild stuff you tend to reach for in your quest to tar others for sins that your side has committed in spades.

Your thread adds nothing new. My thread presents an argument I haven't seen in any other OP. And there were NO other threads addressing my point at the same time I posted

you're well known around here for. It's more like your opinion and no one else's, in thread after thread. So, I'd hope you'd just take it like the stalwart person I know you must be.
We do need to get to the bottom of this; can't afford to repeat mistakes of the past. And I for one didn't see 3 prior threads, but I haven't been around much today.
Oh, and have a nice day! :hi:

24/7. I have read that the Clinton campaign planted questions on other blogs, and I have yet to see any satisfying debunking on that score. All I could find was a non-denial denial, that it isn't their "practise to plant questioners". That is not a debunking.

<snap>

Booman Tribune: Why No to Clinton

Hotline: Plant a Question, Watch An A.B.C. Alternative Bloom?

And when you start a thread, and the list of recently started threads pop up, pretend that DU put it there for Skinner's amusement

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

even though the problem started decades before Poppy

Someone needs to google "Hunt Brothers" and LBJ

Pretend that you understand BCCI and then pretend that those who protect the closed books on BCCI for BushInc are the leaders this country needs.

BTW, just because the Bushboy looks like a chimp, doesn't mean Poppy Bush was shook out of a coconut tree - Poppy Bush had a father, too.

Jackson Stephens and the Harrimans always target certain ambitious pols to help their DEVELOPMENT.

Kinda weak with those little wings, kiddo.

I thought you said everything led back to Poppy and BCCI in another thread

and BCCI does contain the agenda from the decades before, so it IS a great starting point for those needing to understand BushInc and their cronies.

So - you want us to be impressed by what you allude to, but then you also want us to ignore what Dems have helped protect that agenda.

My - how playful and cavalier of you. But not very inspirational for honest citizens.

And your reason is because you don't think DUers are smart enough to understand the history?

I don't believe you. I think you start it with Poppy so you can blame Bill Clinton for supposedly letting him go.

And BTW, in the US it started with Alexander Hamilton

the agenda from decades before.

And you STILL want to ignore the facts about that agenda in YOUR effort to protect a Democratic who had the opportunity to change the course of that agenda - but chose to protect it instead.

I am not impressed with those who go along because they think it makes them closer to power. In fact it nauseates me.

however, what is interesting about the source is so many Hill bashers here at the DU claim that Taylor is a Clinton shill.

Fact check time.

we could do the imposible and limit each topic to one thread we wouldn't have this happening, sometimes in payback mode. There used to be more reigning in of duplicate posts. Politics would be good place to start. Numbers of post on the same topic don't always indicate real world significance.

Each topic turned into a gigantic, slow-loading omnibus thread, and any other thread that was started on the topic would immediately be locked, even if it had a genuinely different angle that would certainly be lost if posted in the same omnibus thread (yes, the threads were all called "omnibus threads" on this that or the other topic).

Because the threads were so long (and slow-loading), it took forever to scan them to get to the point where you felt safe posting.

Before the omnibus thread period, Smirking Chimp had a wonderfully lively discussion board. I used to spend hours there, and the quality of their posters was astonishing. Anyone here who used to hang out at SC could tell you about Kwadwo, Shadowthief (who is now at Booman Tribune and Kos), larebil, and other remarkably well-informed and articulate posters.

But it became too tedious to deal with all those omnibus threads, and some of the best posters were driven away by a variety of issues. I quit visiting the discussion boards at SC, but I still went to the articles on the home page, because they were so easy to read and navigate (and such a great selection, too). But then they changed the format there, so that it was harder to read and navigate (and comment on) articles on the site, and now I seldom even drop by to read the headlines on the front page.

I switched my loyalty to DU, because although it can get annoying when people post innumerable threads on the same subject, especially when that subject is either trivial or misleading, I find it much easier to navigate the articles and threads here, and I prefer the free-for-all quality of the discussions to the over-restrictive reign of Board Nanny on SC.

I try to avoid candidate-bashing threads here on DU, and I actually find it is fairly easy to do so. I usually just don't open them at all. I have also noticed that the "Greatest" page tends to fill up with candidate-bashing threads, since that is what some people like to recommend. But I still enjoy scanning the "Greatest" page for a quick take on recent news, and I love the "Breaking News" page for articles I might have missed in my busy life (though I sure do miss Kephra's ability to keep us up to the second on everything!).

So although I agree that it can get tiresome when so many people post the same criticisms of the same candidates over and over again, I still prefer DU's free-for-all quality to the clamp-downs and omnibus threads on DU. (As for Kos, I seldom even go there, because I find it confusing to navigate.)

I also think it is better not to insulate our candidates from criticism of the sort that the nominee will face in spades once the general election campaign gets started. Hillary is by no means my first choice. I dreamed of a Gore/Clark or Clark/Edwards ticket. Now I dream of an Edwards/Clark ticket. But Clark has endorsed Hillary, and I tend to trust Clark's judgment, so although I honestly wish she had not chosen to run in this election, I will support her wholeheartedly if she is the nominee--especially if she has the wisdom to choose Clark as her running mate.

Couldn't help myself!

I went to the Obama breakout session, and Obama personally called on people to ask their question. Clearly, he did not know who anyone was. OTOH, at Hillary's breakout session, Peter Daou, Hillary's internet director, called on the questioners. Now he claims (and did so on dkos) that he didn't know any of the questioners, save one (who was not a Hillary partisan), and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But right there, in my view, that is setting up a barrier between the candidate and the people which was unnecessary. Hillary is very capable, and could have called on the questioners herself. I will never understand why that duty was delegated to Peter, and such an arrangement opens up the possibility of having plants being allowed to ask a question.

CNN

You know, it HELPED the Clintons having so many Democrats across the country invested in defending the Clintons for so many years. It kept them devoted and they had no time to really get to know or learn about other Democrats.

It's the equivalent of all the airtime and dollars spent by the Major Leagues going to just the Yankees and the Rangers and fostering the rivalry for a good old-fashioned World Series size dog and pony show.

(Click photo for more.)

to read the CNN article?

the last thing I want to read is a hit piece on any Democrat from the mouthpiece for the bush regime...


on edit: yeah it looks like a dumb move by one of Hillary's campaign staffers - moving on...

Wonder how she let that outlet produce a story on her getting a canned question from the audience, then? Some oversight?

Didn't she pull out of the debate faux was to host?


But yeah, she's got real power with that direct access, eh?

Never mind. I take it back.
:headbang:

This is the dumbest case of faux outrage that DU's developed in, oh, the last five minutes.

(emphasis added)

It's obviously a source of embarrassment for the campaign.

If it isn't it should be.

The only embarrassing thing here is the lack of familiarity with how campaigns are run.

It has nothing to do with Dem/Repub, Clinton/Bush, whoever, all campaigns try and control the message, that's Basic Campaigning 101. Getting the questions asked that you to answer is a standard practice. It certainly wasn't invented by bushCo. and by no means is it only practiced by Team Clinton.

Gheesh

link. Feel better?

the actual link.

Sheesh!