by Mark Silva, and updated
The Clinton campaign says the campaign-planted question for Sen. Hillary Clinton at an appearance in Newton, Iowa, this week marks the last time it will attempt something like that. But it may not have been the first time.
Fox News reported today on another attempt in April -- and the potential Clinton questioner involved, a Chrstian minister in Iowa, spoke about it with the Tribune this evening.
The campaign suggests there is no comparison betwen the two incidents.
Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, first told Fox in a telephone interview today that Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler asked him to ask the senator and Democratic candidate for president how she is standing up to President Bush on funding for the war in Iraq and a timeline for troop withdrawals.
This occurred at an event hosted by Iowa State Sen. Gene Frais on a farm outside Fort Madison. Clinton's Iowa campaign confirmed to Fox that one of its staff discussed questions with Mitchell before the April 2 event, but denied attempting to plant a pro-Clinton question.
Mo Elleithee, a spokesman for Clinton, told Fox that staffer Hayler spoke with Mitchell before the event because the two knew each other from previous Democratic activities. And, Elleithee told the Tribune tonight, the two were simply talking about the war, and the staffer, to his knowledge, had not suggested a specific question for the candidate.
"Our staffer, Chris Hayler, and Geoff Mitchell knew each other,'' he told the Tribune. "They bumped into each other at this event, and they started talking and in the course of the conversation the issue of Iraq came up… and they talked about questions he had, and the staffer said, 'Go ahead and ask the question then...' It was just encouraging him to ask a question.
"It was really not a question of anything but encouraging him to ask a question,'' Elleithee maintained tonight.
But Mitchell, in an interview with the Tribune, said that he had never met the Clinton staffer before, had only heard of him in his political work, and introduced himself at the event. And the staffer, Mitchell told the Tribune, had a very specific question in mind for him to ask Clinton.
"He wanted me to ask Sen. Clinton how she was going to be tough in negotiating with the president on funding for the war,'' he said. "It was, 'Why don’t you ask this'… The specific question he had in mind was how she was going to challenge the president on the war.
"I knew of him,'' Mitchell said of Hayler. "He had worked for Sen. Bayh and I knew that. I had my eyes open because I was a big fan of Sen. Bayh… I went over and said, 'You must be Chris Hayler.' I wanted to introduce myself.. The first time I ever had spoken with him was that day.''
But Mitchell wasn't interested in asking the suggested question.
"I wasn’t going to ask that,'' he said. "I wanted to ask her why she had voted for the war… I don’t want to make it sound like I was setting her up... (but) I think someone who wants to be president should be asked why did you or why didn't you vote for the war.''
When Mitchell wasn't interested in asking the suggested question, he said, the staffer looked for someone else to ask it. “I know for a fact that I was not the only person asked to ask that question,'' Mitchell told the Tribune.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
It shows Hillary's desperation to answer some questions. Unless somebody else writes the question and answer and gives it to her, she does not know how to answer questions. This is worse than the FEMA employees. At least the FEMA employees are not running for the highest office in the country. For a democratic party presidential candidate to take a page from the Bush FEMA manual is desperation. What next lip sync answers when Bill secretly answers to question from behind.
Posted by: Jenny Stranton | November 10, 2007 7:06 PM
The Swamp deserves congratulations for covering this fraud by the Hillary campaign, while the other major media in the country are joining instead in the "cover-up." This is nothing short of trying to manipulate the media as well as the voting public and it is to the ever-lasting discredit of the Times, Washington Post, SF Chronicle and networks that they are ignoring the story and not trying to find out how often Hillary had this done in the past.
Posted by: Geraldine | November 10, 2007 7:07 PM
Not the first time any of them did it, period.
They all do.
Posted by: Biggdawg | November 10, 2007 7:09 PM
The fact that the major media are ignoring this story raises the point of whether
there also have been planted questions in Hillary's press conferences and whether members of the media were as complicit as they are now in covering up the question-answer fraud.
Posted by: Shawan | November 10, 2007 7:30 PM
Diogenes has long since thrown in the towel.
Posted by: Richard Friedman | November 10, 2007 9:16 PM
C'mon guys stop picking on Hillary, she's just a delicate little flower. If the last weekend has taught us anything its that Hillary can't even keep her spin from flip-flopping. She's both for and against playing the gender card, and for and against getting prompted questions.
Posted by: mike | November 10, 2007 11:00 PM
This so-called planting of questions takes place by all candidates. Repukes and loonie lefties alike. If Shawan, Geraldine,or Jenny think that Hillary is the only one, they are naive and clueless as to what happens in a campaign.
And once you are in office, like "Bush league", you only answer planted questions in public. Ask the national presscorps..
Posted by: B Doggle | November 10, 2007 11:01 PM
C'mon guys stop picking on Hillary, she's just a delicate little flower. If the last weekend has taught us anything its that Hillary can't even keep her spin from flip-flopping. She's both for and against playing the gender card, and for and against getting prompted questions.
Posted by: mike | November 10, 2007 11:06 PM
to richard friedman - good point - I assume you refer to the "nothing new" quotation
this occurence is actually relevant in this situation - hillary needs the scripted interaction in order to appear she can think on her feet - something that a world leader needs to do very well and something that hillary does not do well - this is all a part of getting america to think they are voting for one thing when they will be voting for quite another - it is a cover up of hillary's weaknesses
to get elected she needs her fans with blinders on to not only be fervent but to help with the cover up of her flaws
to mike - hillaryous -
little t - tom - the independent
Posted by: tom | November 11, 2007 7:26 AM
There isn't much difference between Clinton's "planting" questions in the audience and Obama's "planting" anonymous anti-Hillary videos on youtube.
And each time, when caught the candidate reacted the same: "What?" "Not us"; "rogue staffer"; "won't happen again"...
Posted by: Bruce | November 11, 2007 9:52 AM
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!"
Bart Simpson
Posted by: Bruce | November 11, 2007 9:57 AM
Let's all remember that if a person runs a campaign this way, it probly is the way they will run the country. We all know that the people running for this office will tell you anything to look good to get your vote. Hillary if you want to look good in my eye just answer the questions. And please stop using the phase finacal responsablity to get around answering guestions
Posted by: Ted | November 11, 2007 10:52 AM
Every Bush townhall meeting & press conference is staged. They are so afraid of being asked real questions, they'll go so far as to have reporters that are planted (James Gukert anyone).
Then you have FOX news, nothing more then republican state-run media similiar to what you'd find in third world dictatorships.
Posted by: RomanB | November 11, 2007 5:31 PM
Not only do all the candidates do this or something similar, they all spend hours upon hours studying huge briefing books so they can handle questions both from strangers and those suggested by Advance people. None of you are suffering under the delusion that these polished answers are coming off the top of their head, are you?
It isn't dishonest unless it is like the no reporter press that FEMA did or the "aren't you wonderful" non question questions that are the only ones the President takes.
It is just a matter of getting positions out when an audience might not ask as question whose answer the candidate might want them to
Posted by: Janet White | November 11, 2007 8:14 PM
I don't doubt that all candidates do this, or would if they had a chance. However, Hillary is the one who got caught, and is the one who looks ridiculous.
Posted by: Herbie H. | November 11, 2007 8:24 PM
My fellow Americans, the old Clinton campaign DIRTY DOZEN from the 1990's are back at it again!
This latest revelation, that the Hillary Clinton campaign has been feeding soft and easy questions to members of the audience, which are then posed to Hillary Clinton, is a warning to our country, not to nominate, let alone, elect another Clinton to the White House.
Every bloody one of Hillary Clinton's campaign staff who are involved in this corrupt and unethical practice, is a colossal disgrace to our country. Your loyalty to a candidate should not over ride your patriotic and civic duty to the principles of our democracy. For those sleaze bags: You are subverting the principles of this great Republic and its democracy, by your actions. If you had an ounce of decency, still left in you, they would, all resign.
Ignatius Anyanwu
California
Posted by: Ignatius Anyanwu | November 11, 2007 9:29 PM
to RomanB - but bush isn't running for president in 08 is he ??
to janet white - typical clintonesque rationalization - I remember hearing a similar excuse from several other mindless clinton followers a few years back saying - everyone would lie under oath if it were necessary to protect your reputation - and if they "all" do it, it isn't wrong - go ahead and nominate your divisive politics as usual hillary - even if she wins, she'll be totally ineffective at initiating any of the democratic platform - you'll be shooting yourselves in the foot - hey, it's your party
I for one love my country more than any political party
little t - tom the independent
Posted by: tom | November 12, 2007 10:37 AM