Clinton aides plant student's question

[FishForLunch]

I am sure she was innocent and a victim, must be the Media that is piling on

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By PATRICK CALDWELL

The Iowa caucuses are known for their “living-room chats” where ordinary Iowans can meet candidates face-to-face and talk about what interests voters. When candidates have larger events or make major policy speeches, the crowds are bigger, but there is often still an opportunity for questions. But under the pressures of major media coverage, with polls narrowing in Iowa, campaigns can potentially control questions and coverage by planning questions ahead of time.

While no campaigns admit to this practice, at a recent Hillary Clinton campaign event in Newton, Iowa, some of the questions posed to the New York Senator were planned in advance, planting some audience members in the crowd.

On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue. Reporters from many major national news outlets came to the small Iowa town, from such media giants as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and CNN.

After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said.


Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

But the source of the question was no coincidence—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 and another who had been approached before the event, although Clinton used her discretion to select questions and called on people who had not been prepped before hand. Some of the questions asked were confusing and clearly off-message.

The practice of planting audience members to ask specific questions does not appear to be a common practice, or at least not a politically acceptable one. “Our campaign does not plant questions,” said Lauren Rose, Communications Director for Governor Bill Richardson’s campaign. When asked what she would think of other campaigns who did plant audience members, Rose said, “I think campaigns should give Iowa caucus-goers the chance to ask the questions they want.”

When asked if the John Edwards campaign employed such practices, Jenni Lee, Edwards’s Iowa Press Secretary said, “No, they ask whatever they want.”

But the Clinton campaign also denied the practice of planting. “It’s not a practice of our campaign to ask people to ask specific questions,” said Mark Daley, Clinton’s Iowa Communications Director. Daley said that when an event is focusing on a specific topic, such as health care or Iraq, “people are encouraged to ask questions in these regards,” but denied that they are given specific questions.

But when directly asked if his statements meant that planting does not occur in the Hillary campaign, Daley could only say, “to the best of my knowledge.”

“[Planting] is not something that is encouraged in our campaign,” he said.

The event in Newton was a particularly major policy speech, more informative than rallying. The campaign’s apparent tactics at this event may have little or no relationship with the questions at less formal campaign events.

Other presidential campaigns were approached for comment on the topic, but no others responded before the paper went to press.

Serving as a stark contrast to the Clinton event was Richardson’s campaign stop at Grinnell College the night before. Richardson’s appearance was designed as an opportunity for voters to interact with the candidate, and not the media event that Clinton held in Newton. In lower-profile events like Richardson’s (and most of Clinton’s) candidates face many challenging, presumably spontaneous questions.

[kg_veteran]

Clinton campaign: We don't plant questions, except when we plant them.

Sounds like one of her debate non-answers.

[chumdawg]

It may be pretty shady and all, but it's also evidence of just how serious these folks are. I expect the Clinton campaign to wage one hell of a war this campaign season. They know what they're doing, there's no question about that.

[Usually Lurkin]

SIOUX CITY, Iowa — For the second time in as many days, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has had to deal with accusations of planting questions during public appearances, FOX News has learned.

In a telephone interview Saturday, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, said he was approached by Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler to ask a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question on funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310417,00.html

[FishForLunch]

Once she become the president she will surround herself with decent and straight forward people. Just trust her she is the smartest woman in the world.

[Mavdog]

how is this any different than the bush campaigns? have you forgot about the "town hall" events where every member of the audience were selected and given questions to ask?

true, it shows how scripted the clinton campaign is attempting to be, and that may not be a good focus. imo it reflects negatively on clinton.

is there anything truly wrong about the practice?

[Jack.Kerr]

For that matter is the practice substantively different from doing cream puff "interviews" with friendly "journalists", where the questions are known (if not outright tailored) in advance of the broadcast?

[Usually Lurkin]

lying about the objectivity of audience/interviewer questions is bad no matter who does it. But planting friendlies in the audience, or screening the audience before hand, and working out questions for a softball interview before hand are not as bad as giving specific questions to supposedly objective audience members.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

is there anything truly wrong about the practice?

It makes her look like a pussy doesn't it? Nothing wrong about that, huh?

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

lying about the objectivity of audience/interviewer questions is bad no matter who does it. But planting friendlies in the audience, or screening the audience before hand, and working out questions for a softball interview before hand are not as bad as giving specific questions to supposedly objective audience members.

By what criteria do you distinguish the various practices?

[Usually Lurkin]

I'm not sure I understand your question. They seem like qualitatively different practices. The late night talk show interview (isn't that what Clinton was "caught" pre-arranging?) has always been pre-arranged for whatever star is sitting next to the desk, and for the purposes of pimping whatever product the star is putting out (other talk shows are fluff jobs what, 50 percent of the time?). At the screened "town hall," people are asking their own questions (aren't they?) The deck is stacked in that case. In the case of scripted questions, the deck is rewritten.

If these were polls, I think it'd be like a scripted commercial (the talk show interview), a biased sample (the stacked town hall), and fabricated data (the scripted questions). The first would get the "pollster" promoted, the second chastised with an unpublished paper, and the third would get the pollster fired. Like I said, all three are crappy if objectivity of the questioner is proclaimed and defended, but the third is worst.

[chumdawg]

Honestly, sit back and think about it. You are sitting in Dallas, watching a candidate take a question in Iowa. Do you really think you are a fly on the wall?