Now, we learn her campaign is planting the questions. But they're soooorrrry, and it won't happen again.
It went like this:
Question: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming How does your plan combat climate change?Ha ha. It's usually the young people.
Clinton: "Well, you should be worried. You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming."
ADDED: I love the freeze frame caught by YouTube. It looks like she's just smacked us all in the face. God knows, we deserve it for our insolence.
UPDATE: Watch endless plants crawl out of the woodwork:
In a telephone interview with Fox, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, says he was approached by an operative for the Clinton campaign to ask a planted question about standing up to President Bush on Iraq war funding....
Mitchell tells Fox that Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler approached him and asked him to ask Sen. Clinton a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question of funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline....
“I told Chris I had other issues I wanted to raise with Sen. CLinton,” MItchell said. Asked what those were, Mitchell said: “I wanted to ask her why she voted for the Iraq war and why she didn’t consider that a mistake.”
Mitchel told Fox that Hayler, the Clinton campaign worker, was unhappy and moved on to others. “I know he tried to have others ask that question,” Mitchell said.
Ultimately, Mitchell said Clinton took no questions at the event.
Rinse and repeat.
Posts
64 comments:
Hillary needs a glass of wine to grab from off camera. That's what makes a vlog.
The tag of lameness seems to be the most appropriate category.
I would also like to file it under general douchebaggery but that might be construed as a sexist attack.
Aside from the fact that it was staged, of course it would be primarily the young asking about global warming.
Us old farts remember the panic over global cooling.
But it's okay if the President has planted questions at his press conferences, right? Because he's Republican.
idiots.
get a damn grip.
-Me
If Althouse wants to counteract attempts like this, she could encourage her readers to go to campaign appearances, ask real questions, and then upload the responses to Youtube.
Especially if the question points out a flaw in the candidates' policies and shows that they haven't thought everything through or they're just plain lying. (I.e., are the polar opposite of Althouse's McCain questions).
Didn't Rumsfeld get criticized for having a soldier ask a question at a rally or something?
I lean left and dislike Bush, but the Clintons are so opportunistic, I didn't trust Bill Clinton and I don't trust Hillary. I know inside she probably is substantively closer to my views, but her and Bill are so seemingly willing to compromise for the sake of power or popularity it turns me off. (Bill was so much better at that I don't think people noticed as much.)
Planting students to ask questions is just like Bush giving speeches at those cushy Republican-friendly venues.
It's a refusal to deal with reality. I think it stinks.
Editor in Chief said...
"But it's okay if the President has planted questions at his press conferences, right?"
Link to any post of Ann's, or any comment by a regular here, where it's been either asserted that that's okay, or where someone has defended such a practice. If you can't, what's your point?
Get a damn clue.
Old people ask whether you support giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens, tough questions like that.
Or why won't you release records from the White House.
Yeah okay there Chief. Whatever you say. It's not okay no matter who does it. I think I'm looking at the idiot.
"But it's okay if the President has planted questions at his press conferences, right? Because he's Republican.
idiots.
get a damn grip."
Ah, the old "but everyone does it" defense. Beloved by young children and idiots.
The last politician who was as interesting to look at was Nixon. What a mask.
She does indeed need a glass of wine.
It's not even a very interesting question.
pws,
No, it was the opposite. A reporter had a soldier ask Rumsfeld a specific question at a press conference. Rumsfeld never had someone planted to ask a question.
Raise your hand if you remember when Hillary! accused a questioner who asked her a non-softball of being a "plant" from another campaign.
If a woman ever acts suspicious that you are cheating on her, there is a VERY good chance that she is cheating on you.
Hillary is such a delicate phony, it's amazing that Democrats want her to be president of a school board, let alone the United States. Time and again she's refused to answer questions and refused to debate. She's a lightweight and a coward.
Daryl said:
"She's a lightweight and a coward."
And yet by far the best of all the Dems seeking the nomination. Doesn't speak well of the others.
Dick,
Get real.
The Bush administration has had all kinds of "plants at press conferences...and they've also stopped people from asking questions are even attending becauase they were wearing anti-Bush shirts or even bumper stickers.
Are you forgetting Mr. Jeff Gannon?
How about FEMA just last week?
Just another non-story.
Daryl said..."...it's amazing that Democrats want her to be president of a school board, let alone the United States."
Unlike the idiot we have now??
And by the way, the national polling illustrates that it's not just the Democrats who would prefer Hillary...it's most American voters.
An awful lot of tu quoque going on here. I thought Clinton was supposed to be better?
Simon said..."Doesn't speak well of the others."
This from a guy who's probably voted in 2 Presidential elections in his life...and both times probably for Bush.
And look where that's gotten us.
Oh, and who's the most spectacular Republican candidate??
Ann--FYI:
UPDATE: Fox News is now reporting on another Q & A planting incident by the Clinton campaign. Below's an excerpt and here's the link:
"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."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310417,00.html
The thing that cracks me up about Gannon, apart from the fact that someone--anyone--thinks he's representative of anything, it's that the thing that set everyone off investigating him was that he asked a "friendly" question.
By which, we can assume, Dan Rather was completely owned by the Clintons: "If we could be one-one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been together in the White House, we'd take it right now and walk away winners."
But no, no, there's no bias or tilt in the media.
coffee260,
STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But wait...would you consider this a tad more important:
"US Death Toll In Afghanistan Highest Since 2001 Invasion"
Blake,
Gannon isn't a reporter, moron. He wasn't even supposed to be in the room
And he's a gay prostitute...with his own site.
Duh.
Luckyoldson--When did you stop beating your wife? Do you want to win the war on terror?
coffee260 said..."Luckyoldson--When did you stop beating your wife? Do you want to win the war on terror?"
What int the world are you talking about?
Are you drunk?
And what does a question for Hillary have to do with the war on terror or our loss of life in Afghanistan???
Blake & Coffee,
Why do you both have blogs, but no profile of who the hell you are or why anybody would care?
Actually, Lucky, he was a reporter, and a gay prostitute, something he had in common with a large number of other people in the room.
By the way, there's a story that you were in the room.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
moneyrunner,
You know Jeff, don't you?
By the way, here's who Jeff ("the reporter") worked for:
A virtual organization with no physical office space or newsroom, Talon News was owned by a conservative activist group called GOPUSA and
was shut down February 23, 2005.
Moneyrunner,
Yet another zero with their very own blog, but nobody with comments.
Well, when your mission statement includes: "This site is dedicated to a fierce defense of the truth, freedom and honor."
It's a tad pretentious...don't you think?
Simon,
The others are neither lightweights nor cowards.
The problem is that the Democratic Party is 60% female, and women like her because she is female.
That warps perception.
If Hillary is experienced, then Richardson's experience does not matter, because Hillary-level experience is sufficient.
If Hillary has good judgment, then Obama's judgment does not matter, because Hillary level judgment is sufficient.
And so on and so forth.
This conduct by the Clinton campaign just inspired me to give Obama $3000 (yes, I know some has to be for the general election). God help us if the next President is just like the last one . . . and this is very much something the last one would do and has done.
Ugh.
Mort, I can agree that Richardson isn't a lightweight, but I can't agree on the others, and at least one of them is something even worse. Can we give Kucinich credit for having the bravery to actually act on his convictions about Cheney? Well, not really, insofar as it is in no danger of passing (something Kucinich well knows) and he stands to benefit politically from the mere attempt.
Dodd and Biden are lightweights?
Obama is not a credible change agent? He's unlikeable and dishonest?
Edwards lacks fight? He won't stick it to Bush? He can't repel attacks?
This is supposedly what Hillary is better at.
LOS,
On the Rumsfeld situation, where is the proof that he had anyone planted to ask a question. We already know that a reporter for a Tennessee newspaper had a soldier ask Rumsfeld a question at a news conference. Come on, spit it out. The question was about Rumsfeld, not Bush, not Cheney, not anyone else. Give us a for instance that you can legitimately back up from a creditable news source. If not, you are just as usual bloviating.
Mort - respectively, yes, yes, no, absolutely and without any hesitation or doubt yes, yes, it's irrelevant since Bush isn't on the ballot, and no, not effectively, as the dithering over Marcotte indicates.
Simon,
I think you just disqualified yourself on this subject!
Democrats don't think Dodd and Biden are lightweights and neither do most journalists. I think your definition of lightweight needs some work, given the decades of legislative experience both men have.
Democrats think Obama would bring change and most journalists peg him as the true change candidate. It is hard to understand how Obama would not bring change. As for likeability and honesty, most people think Obama is likeable and honest, and he has the greatest appeal to independents and Republicans of any Democrat running.
Edwards has been very vicious and Democrats want to see the eventual nominees hang the albatross of Bush around the neck of whichever Republican is running in the general. They want this election to be a referendum on Bush.
So, you're just wrong. From the perspective of most people and Democrats voting in the primary, the non-Hillary candidates possess those qualities they seek in a candidate. Those qualities are overlooked -- mostly by women -- because they want a female nominee.
Hillary could eat a baby on stage tomorrow and most female Democrats would still vote for her.
Mort, I really can't say that I take it as an insult that I'm just not looking at these candidates the way that most democrats look at it.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Chris Dodd is a vapid nonentity (one who can't even follow up on the most banale campaign promise), and Biden is, after Schumer, the most loathseome human being in the Senate. They are both lightweights, and having being present in the Senate for an extended period of time won't change that. Obama -- as I've explained in posts and comments passim -- strikes me as oleaginous, pedestrian and and wholly unlikable, a function of being either the stupidest person to run for the Presidency in thirty years if he believes his rhetoric or the most dishonest if he doesn't. I don't see why it's necessary to expend the time or energy to determine which, and it's mystifying to me how anyone is taken in by his rorschach-chic schtick. Fortunately, few are, and if there were any real danger of his being the nominee, I'd be campaigning for Hillary. Lastly, Edwards is a joke, and if one's left so bereft of credible defenses of him that "Dems want to pin Bush on the GOP nominee and he'll give it the old college try" starts to seem appealing, I'm sorry, but that's just faintly funny.
I don't much like Hillary, but my disagreements with her are over policy. She is the consummate politician, and I have no reason to doubt that she would be a terrifically effective President if measured by the yardstick of carrying out her desired agenda. As mortifying as this is to say, if we've got to lose to anyone, I'd rather lose to her, becaus the rest of that menagerie are beyond a joke. And I'm not just saying that 'cos I fancy her.
Isn't Dodd the one who's always sucking up to Castro? Can an American (or any Free World) politician be more loathsome than that?
Mortimer Brezny said..."Bush could fuck up even more than he has already and I'd still support him."
dick said..."On the Rumsfeld situation, where is the proof that he had anyone planted to ask a question."
I never said he did.
Did I?
Meanwhile, in the real world, Chris Dodd is a vapid nonentity (one who can't even follow up on the most banale campaign promise), and Biden is, after Schumer, the most loathseome human being in the Senate
Simon, surely you exaggerate about Biden. In the case of Schumer...well, what can I say?
This interesting little piece from Wizbang quotes Biden saying some very sensible things. He occasionally does say something intelligent, and sometimes even votes accordingly. Most of the time, sadly, he is our Senator Foghorn, one of the great bloviators in the grand tradition of Senatorial bloviation.
Chris Dodd may be model of a modern lightweight Senator, but I wouldn't call him a "nonentity." After all, Dodds have held that Connecticut Senate seat I think since the Hayes Administration. "I believe in God and Senator Dodd" was not a joke at one time. But things have changed, and dynastic politics have made Connecticut into what was once known in Britain as a "rotten borough."
Dynastic politics are bothering me more and more, and that extends emphatically to Mrs. Clinton. But given what you say about the other candidates, most of which I agree with, I think there is very good reason for Hillary to be our first Inevitable President.
Grump.
I love the disparaging remarks Simon and Clank-A-Bell throw out about Biden ("the most loathseome human being in the Senate"???) and others.
This, after the Republicans have controlled Congress for 12 years...and look where it's gotten us.
Dumb talking to dumber.
What a hoot...
Nowadays when you buy a carbon offset they plant a question about global warming for you. They've run out of trees.
"Hillary could eat a baby on stage tomorrow and most female Democrats would still vote for her."
Maybe they just think she's the most likely to win a general election, despite (or maybe because of) her flaws.
"Chris Dodd ... vapid nonentity ... Biden ... loathseome ... Obama ... oleaginous, pedestrian and wholly unlikable ...stupidest person to run for the Presidency ... or the most dishonest ... Edwards ... a joke..."
Simon, the fact that you, a conservative non-Democrat, find these candidates so unappealing isn't any kind of argument as to why Democratic voters should find them unappealing. That kind of smug cocoonery loses elections (e.g., Clinton - Dole, 1996).
Clang!Honk!Tweet! said...
"Simon, surely you exaggerate about Biden."
I don't think so. This is the guy who, during the Bork hearings, was caught plagiarizing a speech and was publicly villified for it, whereupon he turns to Bork - to the latter's incredulity - and says to him "you and I are in similar situations." And for a more recent case for the prosecution, consider his performances during the Roberts and Alito nominations, which speak for themselves.
I suppose the advantage of having Chris Dodd in the race is that it makes it more likely that people can get my surname right on first attempt, but I don't think that exactly counts as a public good. Mere presence in the Senate counts as experience about so much as standing around in the water chatting at a pool party makes one an olympic swimmer.
Paco, the problem with these folks extends way beyond politics. There are so many Democrats who could run for President who would be serious candidates - Richardson and Clinton, who are running of course, but we could mention Mark Warner, Janet Napolitano, Evan Bayh or even Tom Carper. And this is the field? How brain dead does one have to be to think that Barak Obama represents "hope," that he is a credible agent of change when he has abadoned his own spiel about doing politics differently the instant it got in the way of what you have to do to contest a primary in this day and age?
Chris Dodd voted for DOMA; I thought Democrats generally supported equal rights for gays. And Biden's character flaws -- plagiarism and academic dishonesty -- were exposed the first time he ran for President.
To me Obama is still the most appealing candidate.
Simon,
Based on your many long-winded pontifications, you obviously consider yourself to be an expert in the world of politics, but what do you base this wealth of knowledge on?
How many Presidential elections have you voted in during your entire life?
Two?
And let's take a guess...voted for the same guy both times.
Right?
FLS, you don't think Obama would have voted for DOMA? You don't think Obama is intellectually dishonest (e.g. the vapid way he talks about "moving past" culture wars issues)? You don't see how quickly the "politics of hope as a different way of doing politics" shriveled when it become inconvenient even while he continud to pay lip service to it?
EVERY BODY...
Gather 'round...SIMON...political guru...extraordinaire!!
C'mon...Simon...how many times have you voted in an election?
Give us some background on your extensive experience.
simon, there's this thing called "google" that allows one to investigate things. right off, check out his 2004 letter to a gay newspaper:
http://www.wctimes.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=4018
Obama said in 2004 that he opposed DOMA in 1996. Obama has a consistent record of supporting gay rights, and wants to repeal DADT.
Ah, Lucky, in excellent form again!
I don't know how you do it, day in and day out.
For those of you who are new, you may have discovered there are several commenters who play comic characters. The two most prominent are "Maxine Weiss," who plays a barmy Malibu society matron, and "Luckyoldson," who plays a burnt-out old hippie from San Diego, whose only purpose in life is to drive away anyone who doesn't love Mrs. Clinton. Insane insults, batty non sequiturs, and every evidence of a room-temperature IQ make up his stock in trade.
Neither of them ever drop their masks, so it makes for quite some comment threads when they're around.
If I feel inclined, I kick Maxine around, and praise Lucky for his excellent acting ability and perseverance.
Clank-A-Bell,
Got anything to say relating to the thread or previous comments?
If not, why not just, deliver your pizzas and shove it up your ass?
*Burnt out old hippie?
That's a new one.
Former,
Simon doesn't Google.
He relies on his extensive experience.
Well, Lucky, you ARE 60 years old, and I seem to recall somewhere you referred to yourself as a "hippie," so the "old hippie" comic character makes perfect sense.
You see, unlike Simon, I do use Google. Oh, do I use Google.
This thread is older than dirt, but I did want to point out to people the reason for Lucky's nonsensical critique of my previous comment.
Anybody with half a brain would see that I was semi-defending Biden and linked to a somewhat positive piece about him. My point was that I don't like dynastic politics.
Lucky continues to play his part. No one bright enough to turn on a computer could actually be this stupid.
Could they?
Clank-A-Bell,
I've never referred to myself as a hippie in my entire life, and I certainly don't consider it a derogatory term in the least...some of my best friends were just that.
What I don't understand is this: Why do you respond to my comments? Why not just SOB and continue with your usual suckfest with like parties?
I don't care what YOU say...so why are you soooooooo enthralled with me and what I say?
*Actually...it's kind of creepy.
Clank-A-Bell,
What does this comment from you have to do with ME?
"Anybody with half a brain would see that I was semi-defending Biden and linked to a somewhat positive piece about him."
If he thought it were politically expedient to do so, he'd throw you under a bus, FLS. There's no credible reason to think that he would have voted agsint DOMA, least of all that he said after the fact that he would have done while seeking election. Actions speak louder than words, FLS, and you have to ask yourself this: Obama has been a member of the United States Senate for nearly three years; in that time, notwithstanding his campaign trail statements, how many bills has Barak Obama introduced or cosponsored to repeal DADT or DOMA? How many amendments has he offered on bills where such an amendment was germane? Despite the fact that he has posessed more power to repeal those laws as member of Congress than he now asks you to give him as President, and has done nothing, you still think his promises are credible? Ask yourself about the ends-means mismatch, compare it to his actual record as a Senator, and you will see why I find it beyond credibility for him to make claims that he wants to repeal DOMA and DADT.
Simon,
How many elections have you voted in?
P.S. Is there a Phillipe in the room?
Phillipe?
Are you there?
Tell ya what, Lucky. You don't want me responding to what you say, why don't you shut up about my comments? I mean, generally I don't say anything to you, but you take it upon yourself to attack me.
You don't say anything to or about my comments, and I'll return the favor.
Deal?
If not, I'll feel free to point out what a clown you play whenever and however I want to.
Clank-A-Bell,
Could you just blow me instead?
*Phillipe?
Post a Comment