Was Hillary Clinton lying about whether she knew about her campaign planting questions?

I was reading the NYT this morning where the issue about the campaign getting staff to have people be plants in the crowd and ask questions to the Senator.

In the article, this is reported about whether Senator Clinton knew about the questions being proposed by the staff:



Actually, her campaign admitted to such a tactic. Later in the article, one of the people who the campaign asked to have a question for the Senator reported this and the action was noted 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:



Is Hillary Clinton lying about whether she knew about the practice of planting questions in the crowd?

Flame bait OP.

...call an honest well-linked assessment of a contradictory statement where someone gets caught in a lie...."flame bait"...

There are choices in the poll where one could think Hillary Clinton had no idea that campaigns use planted questions as part of the political tactics.

She had no idea that her staff was planting questions for her to ask. No idea...

:rofl:

The prompting could have occurred without planted questions. If Ms. Gallo-Chasanoff was off to the side and out of Clinton's view, and was one of the first to signal that she had a question, staff members could point her out to HRC. The other story yesterday made made it clear that her campaign did have a practice of wanting to get at least some planted questions.

In a small crowd, if they pick very articulate, pro-Hillary people this could affect the dynamic of the group. It could also easily backfire. The smaller the group is, especially if they have some connections to each other, the more likely someone asked to give a question will tell others. My guess is that this will not be a practice in any campaign starting now - as with this story, the likelihood of getting caught will be too high. They could still ask their own campaign supporters to do so.

Candidates know that their campaigns are doing stuff like this. They want to "get their message" out and this is a great way to do it.

We all should be upset when a DEM candidate does something like this, I don't care who it is.

Some days politics just makes me sick.

is that she got caught.

"Everybody's doing it." I think this is a terrible tactic by Hillary. "I'm no different than anybody else."

She is different. She's using Bush style campaign tactics and it's disturbing. Of course we'll never fund out if she's any different, because she doesn't take unscripted questions.

Such tactics didn't begin with Bush, and the candidates are all looking for an edge.

just an observation. I am in no way a Hillary supporter, but I don't think she's doing anything unusual. By the same token, I suspect the various candidates have posters - paid or otherwise - that come to boards like this one to shape perceptions.

My Dad used to say the exact same thing about Nixon.

As he was calling on Jeff Gannon.

showing over and over of her winking to the girl who asked the planted question.

if You Tube has it.

that he didn't know his supporters got SC to drop Colbert from the ballot. Was Obama lying when he said that he didn't use his gay basher for support. Gee whiz how many times has Obama's campaign been caught with their pants down....WAS HE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THOSE THINGS.

Of I forgot he's the Saint with his halo of course not..but now it's different when it's Hillary she is responsible for every single solitary itty bitty tiny winy thing that goes on in her campaign.

Gee OBama suck ups you are really really getting sickening.

I like how you flail in the water.

Nicely played... :boring:

nothing to do with Obama. Another Hillary rant with no message.

And some on DU are buying the media hype AGAIN! You think we would have learned something from the last election--apparently not.

WAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Trying to change the subject in the most obviously delusional way...

because, like all Hillary polls, the outcome is known the instant the poll is posted, due to all the Hillary hatred by people here who are consumed with jealousy of her. In this case, it's just a cheap opportunity to brand Hillary a liar by weak-minded DU posters who will vote negatively on anything Clinton.

The people who do this so consistently without a second thought are the real liars, not Hillary, and you all know it.

What are you scared of? Democracy?

People voting in this poll overwhelimingly believe she is lying. Even people that support her are voting "yes", so I think you're wrong on this one.

Thank goodness that mainsteam Democratic America reflects none of the outright foolishness that occurs on this forum considering Hillary.

over 70% of the country that thinks Bush is terrible is out of touch with reality. It is the 23% that are in touch with reality.

OK

Start taking some ginkgo immediately. Hope that helps...

you always personally attack those who prove the relevance of their posts. I think it was done here of which you refuse to answer. So go ahead and do the typical Hillary supporter bashing. No prob here, LOL.

Like DU is irreleavant because they do not agree with you. LOL

The same logic Bush uses when only 23% agrees with him.

The comparison stands. Sorry if this is not liked by you but you made the rather unintelligent remark about DU.

Hillary is a celebrity candidate with little elected experience, and right leaning positions, that uses Bush style campaign tactics. Hillary is 100% produced. She's a big name filled with the latest in popular focus group opinions. Thus far in this campaign, she has been unable to answer unscripted questions. Most people hanging out at DU are smart enough to see this. BTW, she doesn't do much better at other "democratic" sites.

Well said, Bleachers.

the same.

What would be the excuse for the overwhelming majority not interested in supporting her candidacy in the primaries?

Are they "liberals"? "Anti-war socialists"? "Lefty nutjobs"?

This post shows a classic example of how Hillary Clinton's own words and actions (when in error or caught in a lie) are viewed by a majority that see through her act and by a small minority that just can't admit to her being the wrong candidate at this time.

If you could succinctly answer why your admittedly small number of 12% support Clinton on DU, I'd like to see that. Perhaps start a new thread with why so few like her...

Do you really think I'm going to waste my energy by starting a thread asking why only 12% of DU'ers like Hillary? Part of the answer lies in the fact that DU has become a magnet for anti-Hillary people across the internet, whatever their political origins might be. It's well known across the internet that if you hate the Clintons, you'll be welcomed with open arms by the majority of people here on this forum.

"What did you say, Otis? You're a Democrat and you hate Hillary as much as the rightwing nutjobs do?? Well I know a place where you'll just love to post!"

You see, zulchzulu, what happens online just doesn't even come close to comparing what's REALLY happening out there in the real world where the percentages are practically reversed on almost everything. It seems that all your efforts to derail her just aren't making a dent in real life.

Tell me about it.

During the warm months leading up to a week ago, I did a table for Obama at the very busy Farmers Market in Madison and a few other places and support for Obama, Edwards and Kucinich were there and I'd say no more than a dozen people supported Hillary Clinton. By an overwhelming majority, many made it known that they can't stand her...young, old, women, men...

I'd say that DU levels of support for Clinton are about right. We'll see what happens when the votes start coming in.

Good luck.

good luck to you, too.

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

Now run along and scan the forum for more anti-Hillary garbage you can join in on.

we see with your typical sarcasm, rants and personal attacks on others who do not agree with you and evidently my post proved my point with you.

I attended a Hillary "Leadership" conference the amount of ignorance in the gym was astounding. the pains taken not to mention Joe Biden were laughable. the mood of the conference, was that of a get rich quick seminar. conning yes I said it, conning people to do phone banking. the theme was to tout her "Experience" when Joe has fifteen years of experience on her. You know Damn well she knows about planted questions. She Will not tolerate any tough "Gotcha" questions again. No jealousy here just someone who would rather the electorate of the united states, be informed with truth. not branded "leaders" with no followers.:crazy: as all those phone bankers, now consider themselves Leaders. Instructed to Ignore or ridicule any debate Contrary to Hillary for president.:crazy::puke:

I'm guessing you didn't think she lied when she said it "was news to her" that the campaign was planting questions. Those are her words and actions. Is pointing that out "garbage" or some semblance of "Hillary haters" or worse, "sexist?

Take the truth on the chin.

of attempting to put your own words into someone else's mouth. No where did I mention anything about being sexist or even imply it, but...nice...effin...try. lol

You seem to want to make a point that when an event or two that happened with the Clinton campaign that exposed possible mendacious behavior (I didn't use "lying" here in this instance to make you feel more comfortable), it's nothing more than "Hillary Hate" or whatever other kneejerk response from the usual suspects.

I've seen it before here at DU. Point out some issue regarding Hillary Clinton's votes/record/own words and yes, you get accused of being "sexist"... hell, even Clinton's campaign uses that ruse.

Good luck.

I never brought up the "sexist" thing, nor do I know of anyone else who did in this thread. Thanks for asking, tho.

WAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

And normally, I'd leave it at that, but then this l'il gem caught my eye:

"...all the Hillary hatred by people here who are consumed with jealousy of her."

Jealousy? I suppose the many billions of humans that hate * are "jealous" of him, right?

:rofl:

Jesus Christ, there's retarded, and then there's RETARDED.

In fact, I translated many of them and it seems each one took about 1/10th of a second to translate because not a single one of them had an original thought in them, not one.

Hey, if your going to try and insult me, MLFerrel, at least don't be so feeble about it. Now run along...

People: eyes on the crisis. Which is, to me, what passes for her platform. Whether she knew a question was planted? Who cares? How she justifies enabling neo-cons is what we really need to get her to address.

ok as well as all of his staged events.
------------------

The reports of a planting pattern come at a tough time for Clinton, who was widely criticized for being evasive during the last presidential debate. Faking questions is a particularly serious charge in Iowa, where caucus-goers are notoriously proud of their unique democratic process. (Howard Dean lost support when his earlier complaints about the caucus emerged late last cycle.)

And some Democratic activists say faking interactions with the public is reminiscent of the Bush administration's manipulative tactics. Liberal bloggers have already begun comparing Clinton's town halls to the recent fake "news conference" staged by FEMA.

The flap moved John Edwards to weigh in on Saturday after his speech to the Farmers' Union. "That's what George does: George Bush goes to events that are staged where people are screened," The Politico's Ben Smith reported. "That's not the way democracy works in Iowa," Edwards added.

On Fox News, pundit Alan Colmes tried to defend Clinton's practices by drawing a parallel to the current President. "This is much ado about nothing," he said during his Friday broadcast. "George W. Bush ran carefully controlled town hall meetings during both of his candidacies." For many Democratic voters, that is part of the problem.

From The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/melber

Seriously, it seems like when George Bush does this it makes us all incredibly angry. I can't see how anyone would excuse Clinton of doing it. It's pretty low. The "I didn't know" defense is no good. The captain of the ship is always responsible.

Or is Clinton not the leader?

That stuff is beneath her, something for the 3rd string aide to take care of. Just like tipping the waitress. Do you people really expect Hillary to be able to give the lobbyists who represent real Americans her undivided attention if you keep pestering her with "what questions were planted"? Apparently you weren't listening when Leona Helmsley explained the difference between the powers that be and the 'little people'.

so I voted yes. :hi:

:rofl:

And yet she DOESN'T know that this is going on? She DOESN'T think to ask something like "Hey, why do all those people you make me call on sound like they're reading from our campaign website?"

I'll say it again: something like this WILL NOT work unless the candidate knows about it. You cannot have a regular, practiced method for planting questions and then leave the selection of those questioners to random chance. You cannot have a well-oiled machine at one end and a roll of the dice at the other. The candidate has to know whom to call on AND have an answer at the ready.

At best this is a case of plausible deniability, which is the same as lying in my book.

:applause:

Other suggestions for the HillaryHub folks to spin the truth about her lying:

deceitful
deceptive
delusive
delusory
dissembling
dissimulating
equivocating
guileful
mendacious
perfidious
prevaricating

The usage of these terms should make the story go away. Hell, use "mendacious". It sounds like Men were picking on her...again.

:rofl:

And still say, "But that's OK! First woman president, rah rah RAH!"

:shrug:

Can we please be done with the Chimpy - Clinton regimes?

Asked her something about the war, didn't like her answer and she got angry?

Why would she think he was a plant?

This IS so Bush-like.....controlling the news environment and paranoia. :(

Yes, America needs MORE "out of the loop" executive management.
Ken Lay was "out of the loop".
Bush was "out of the loop".
Rumsfeld was "out of the loop".
Hillary was "out of the loop".


When Hillary discovered the scam, she immediately fired the campaign workers who were involved, and immediately fired Mark Penn for not supervising his operatives.

Oh wait....no she didn't.
By NOT publicly firing these people, Hillary is endorsing and participating in this dishonest practice.....MORE "no accountability" faux leadership.


Magicians use planted shills to sell illusions.
So does Hillary.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

Chances are that when a person has a track record of lying and deception on important matters, that they also lie about more mundane ones.

My boyfriend and I were watching the news last night. He doesn't keep up with politics very much at all. As soon as they showed the clip of Hillary saying she didn't know, we both busted out laughing. Of course she knew. But at the same time, I don't think this will derail her campaign at all. It's a blip and a small one at that for her.

then how could she not know it was happening?

:rofl:

A young man who had on a t-shirt from Saturday's Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner
and two Hillary! buttons asked her a question about Don't Ask Don't Tell. I can't tell you if he was a 'plant' or just a supporter who wanted a clarification on the issue.

:cry:

Your point that any question, if indeed asked honestly without being a plant, is now subject to people thinking that the question is a plant with a Q&A with Senator Clinton.

Having been to those very important events in 2003-4, if I was wondering that about such a situation, it would only breed cynicism and calculation about the candidate.

Thanks for your work in Iowa. It can't be more important than now.

I think he's either lying or incompetent. or both. I don't think Hillary's incompentent.

Really a stupid poll. Ask Obama or any other candidate if they bussed people in to the JJ dinner the other night to make it appear that Iowans wildly support him. It's a campaign. Does it matter? The only thing Iowans are doing is making candidates spend more and more money in their state. Why shouldn't they? The media is making a fortune off of this circus as well. Imagine if Hilary Clinton or John Edwards doesn't win the nomination? What will happen? Will your life not be worth living? Will you wallow in a cesspool of disgust and bitterness? That's right, step back from the temple of adulation for a second and remember we are talking about a presidential candidate whose supporters believe if another candidate plays hard ball then it's okay to throw integrity and principles out the window.

...and you rant about the JJ dinner.

Obviously, you want to change the subject. I wonder why.

:shrug:

And neither Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul have a snowball's chance.

Their policies are polar opposites. Either DK is wrong to say that expanding the federal government will solve our nation's problems, or RP is wrong to say that we should dismantle the federal government, or both are.

Thus, they are both telling the truth and if you happen to disagree with them, so be it.

On the other hand, the other candidates are telling us what they think we want to hear, rather than what they actually believe. They are simply trying to figure out who they need to be in order to get to 51%. The other candidates are phonies.

what is actually true, as opposed to what a candidate can make you believe he believes. I find both Kucinich and Ron Paul to be panderers, simply to a different audience.

Yeah, she's going to go on the record saying she didn't know about it and have that be a lie. The super careful, parsing Hillary Clinton is going to make herself that vulnerable. Then some bozo goes on record saying he told Hillary or Hillary ordered the planting, and goodbye.

Yeah, no. Not in this world.

It's just a dumb question on its face. You may want to believe otherwise, but that's for you and the Yes voters to live down. It's wrong to believe something just because you want to. It's wrong to say you believe something bad about someone when you don't.

You and the Yes voters may not believe Hillary, and you may wish her ill, but that doesn't make it right to try to spin up falsehoods about her out of whole cloth. An insinuation backed by a fallacious "appeal to the populace" is pretty low grade dog food, IMO.

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC CORRESPONDENT (on-camera): Brian, today's events were as carefully choreographed as the New York City Ballet.

(voice-over): Under pressure to either get in or get out, Hillary Clinton finally makes it official by answering a prearranged question from a friendly union leader.

QUESTION: So, is it yes, or is it no?

HILLARY CLINTON, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe that if we work together, we really can make a difference for the children and families of New York. So the answer is yes, I intend to run.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/12/clintons-planted-questio_n_72294.html

Doesn't look like it to me. Staged events are common in politics. Clinton's sin here is passing off a staged event as an honest one.

Iowans want to ask tough questions. Hillary didn't want tough questions. So she met us halfway, she answered her own questions.

If Hillary was a fish, we would throw her back!

Hillary didn't want to avoid questions in particular, she wanted to ensure that at some point a question be asked that allows her to launch into the mini-speech she wanted to.

...the issue is whether a candidate lies about knowing that such tactics exist.

Next thing you know, Clinton handlers will be saying someone planted the lie in her mouth...perhaps someone from the Obama or Edwards campaign...

:crazy: