Student given question to ask Clinton: I wasn't only one

Source: CNN

<snip>

In an exclusive interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Iowa — whose story in her campus newspaper has now been widely circulated — said that giving anyone specific questions to ask is "dishonest," and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.

Gallo-Chasanoff, an undecided voter, said what happened was really pretty simple: she says a senior Clinton staffer asked if she'd like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech she gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6. (Watch Gallo-Chasanoff ask Clinton the question)

"I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'" Gallo-Chasanoff said.

"'I don't think that's a good idea," the staffer said, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, "because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans."

He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.

"The top one was planned specifically for a college student," she added. " It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question."

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/13/student-given-question-for-clinton-i-just-want-honesty/

silly and will have no impact--- it surprises me Democrats
have not figured this out.

If it is your absolute aim to attack HRC, look for something
that matters.

I am always amazed at the generosity of these guys--Karl Rove too--in explaining things like this to us clueless liberals.

and that anyone who questions him has to be a plant.

Sorry, but Hillary needs to be held to the same standard by us!

This IMHO is not trivial. Dem candidates need to be open to all the public and to all questions, not just to questions they want to get and have rehearsed.

Clinton and her people stepped in to this crap - they have to dig their way out. And frankly I'm glad in a way it happened and we are getting back a real race and not just a crowning of a Dem candidate the beltway punditry are appointing for us.

And since when do I listen to Newt - this is the kind of crap Repukes pull. I expect my Dem candidates and their handlers to be above this chicanery!

That's very different from preventing anyone with an opposing view to even get into the venue, which is what chimp does.

This is another non-story, in the same group as Obama's flag lapel.

processing the corporate duopoly.

The gulf between the average DUer and those they'll be -forced- to ultimately vote for is astonishingly wide.

Every campaign has a certain amount of gamesmanship, but you don't want to get caught.

This is the kind of thing that can ruin a perfectly good campaign.

So it's note-able and does matter.

If it did happen, Hillary needs address it and correct it in an open manner. Not as an attack on Hillary, but to show that she is different than Bush. It hurts at first, but later increases credibility and appeal.



What a horrible idea by the way....

Cheers.

When a question starts off with "As a college student...." it's obviously a plant.

Who in the hell speaks like that normally? I wonder if we'll see this in future appearances - "As a recently retired person...", "As a homemaker who has two children..."

If you're going to plant a question at least make it look less obvious.

:eyes:

Nice to know whose side you are on.

:shrug:

n/t

how the heck would she have known that? how could she know that?


:wtf:

Hillary is a nightmare for Dems. If she is our candidate for 2008, mark my words...we will lose. I'll bet on it.

1.) She's the single best rallying force for the Repukes. She will turn out their base and depress ours.

2.) On a personal level, she does not resonate with a broad-spectrum of voters (particularly males).

3.) She reminds people of the bullsh*it that went on between Repukes and Dems during the 90s.

4.) She continues to shoot herself in the foot with incidents like this cowardly behavior of fielding pre-planned questions.

5.) She alienates the very base she is seeking to court by supporting Neocon agendas (e.g., Iran vote) and corporate expansion.

Again, I'll say it will full conviction. If Hillary is our candidate, then we will lose. I have no doubt whatsoever and will gladly eat my words if proven untrue, but I feel that it's a safe assumption.

J

This incident is a problem of her own making, which is borne from her political strategy not to "offend" anyone and shoot for the middle-of-the-road. It is her problem, not Obama's or any other Dem candidate.

Why is it so difficult for Hillary supporters to admit that this was a costly and stupid mistake on her part?

BTW - I'm not supporting Obama, either. But, if I had to, I could vote for him. Hillary? Never. And, while you may think that doesn't matter, it's one less vote for the Dems in 2008. I'm not alone and unless the base wakes up to this fact, there will be plenty of Monday morning quarterbacking about how we shouldn't have been bullied into making her our candidate.

J

If he wouldn't have had some homophobe singing gospel songs on his campaign tour, Hillary wouldn't have had to resort to planting questions. Shame on Obama!

He's also to blame for the whole Clenis/Lewinsky thing!

you will cast a vote for Hillary against a republican. We've got some OLD justices on that Supreme Court and I don't want 7 Scalia's overseeing this country for the next few decades. The damage would be unreparable. I may have to hold my nose, but I will vote for any dem.

And yes, this question thing is dumb. What is funny is that when bush did this four years ago, there was nothing but outrage at DU...and there should have been. It made me proud to be a Democrat. And now, people assume this is Obama with a vendetta and that this is all just normal, acceptable politics.

If this renders a Repuke into the WH, then so be it. How are we to change the direction of our party if we continue to support DINO/Repuke-lite candidates? A vote for Hillary by me would be conceding defeat that our party is really no different than the Repukes. I want our party back and putting Hillary in the WH is not going to accomplish that.

What evidence do we have since the 2006 mid-term elections that supporting the mainstream (or media picked) Dems is a basis for fundamental change in this country?

NONE.

J

unfortunatly choose between fucking up our country for 8 years or 40. I know what my choice is...but then I am young.

But go ahead and be angry. I'm serious. It is good for the party and maybe she won't win the nomination after all. Just promise that you'll let the republican nominee scare the shit out of you into voting for a Dem...or that you live in a solid blue or red state where your vote won't matter, thanks to our Electoral College system.

I mean a whole audience.....with friendly questions. Like this one. And we know it had to be planted.
********
Audience member....Mr. President during the Viet Nam War didn't you fly
those airplanes on patrol to protect this country from the enemy....

bush................yes, yes I did.

***************
What I want to know is where...did he fly those missions...dusting a drug crop.

And I don't care that it's Hillary doing it. No one should do this. But what really gets me is that somehow Jeff Gannon gets a pass and it's alright for Bush. I think what Bush did was worse because he is the sitting Presidunce. Now where's Bianca?

Dems should hold ourselves to higher standards of behavior. Just because the Repukes do it does not absolve Hillary of her cowardly and underhanded behavior.

J

When asked by progressive columnists and pundits if he had talking points for them, like the GOP had, he flatly said no. Kerry lost, Bush won. Yes, I understand there may or may have not been malfeasance in 2004 - but it still stands that Bush was extremely unpopular and should have lost by a wide margin.

Bush won because Kerry had a supremely stupid campaign handler, Bob Schrum, who thought to take the high road and not refute the swiftboaters early on. There's a difference between "rising above it" and allowing your opponent to lie about you relatively unchecked for months. Kerry lost because of incompetence, not cowardice.

J

I certainly don't want Hillary to rule by executive fiat (if elected) simply because Shrub did so.

I thought we voted (D) because we want something different from the reaming we get under an (R)...when did that become unspeakably politically naive?

:shrug:

Everyone has plants. That's a given - in fact I would be more worried if a candidate didn't have plants.

That would mean they won't be able to battle the GOP Election Machine.

.

You already do, and have since birth.

Yes, I don't like this but arguing about it is like arguing about sideways rain in Chicago. It's going to be there, so get an umbrella and head for the nearest awning.

I'm looking for the candidate who

- best represents my interests
- can beat the GOP
- has some tricks up his or her sleeve to get good work done

Clinton meets all three. I hope Obama has #2, because I'm really pushing for him (he meets #1 better than Clinton) Edwards definitely has #3 covered, and Kucinich lacks in #2. Same with Gravel and Richardson.

Dodd and Biden may be the dark horses this time around - but we really don't know how they would stack up in the fight. Then again, we don't really know how any of them would stack up.

Never mind the fact that we here at DU have taken Bush to task over planting Jeff Gannon as a "reporter" and FEMA staging a fake news conference.

Oh, but Hillary planting questions, that's okay then.

:eyes:

Nowhere in the article does it further explain how many or who else was given a question. Other than they had the question identified in the binder for a college student.

Do any of the other campaigns use the same method? Probably do when the stakes are high.


Why did the girl think she needed to ask permission about the type of question? For a college student not very bright.

Can you see the Kucinich campaign planting questions?

Not.

DISCLAIMER!!!!! I am not whoring for Hil when I say this!!!


_________


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

Now that this has gotten some press, if anyone was asked by another campaign, they might be inclined to call the press.

And it won't be easy to lie. It will have to be someone who actually asked a question at an event.