The anatomy of a staged (Clinton) question

Democrats, with Hillary/Bill you know what you're gonna get, don't you? If she slips through and reaches 1600 Penn Ave again, we will have this kind of deceptiveness and small mindedness on steroids. Either Bill taught the former Sixth Lady how to be slick, or she was the one who had the market cornered on being slick. Nevertheless, neither had brains enough not to get caught. But that's the way of deceptive people. They never expect to get caught. This episode should send the message out to all the young voters about the importance of character and the need to select leaders who lie and are deceptive.

Why doesn't the electorate vote for a third party candidate( Ron Paul) or whoever, and show both parties we have had enough. when an Independant wins maybe then all these Aholes will realize, we the American People have truly spoken. I personally have had enough of both parties, after 26 years as a democrat I have awakened to independance maybe this is a solution to all the Bullsh*t, it can't hurt, look what we have running now, it is disgusting.

"The Clinton campaign said it was an isolated incident, denied it was standard procedure and promised it wouldn't happen again."

Which is another lie. Of course it has been SOP. It's been SOP since at least the Reagan administration, when handlers realized that the best campaigns are controlled campaigns.

It is time for a change.
It is time for a candidate who has proven he can think on his feet "when the winds of changes shift."* It is time for Barack Obama.

* Bob Dylan, "Forever Young"

It continues to astound and disappoint me regarding what does and doesn't concern the people of the United States. If this were an isolated issue, it would not have as much impact as the fact that it simply continues a pattern that not only reflects the danger of Ms. Clinton even being considered as a presidential candidate, but of her husband's own pattern of dishonesty and manipulation of the very people they supposedly want to represent.

Typical. I figured this all along. These 'candidates' are too stupid and nieve to answer an off-the-cuff question. Just shows that not one of them is worthy of my vote.....which truly sucks and is an embarrassment to this country.

She is a BIG LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wait. How could this be?
CNN is the evil liberal left-wing media! How could they have possibly have done this story!?!

I look forward to Faux News scrutinizing the GOP front runner in a similar way...

I'm shocked? A politician manipulating a media event? Has this ever happened before?

Oh noes... my faith in democracy has been shaken. Oh wait, that happened years ago. Never mind!

It is very obvious that Hillary Clinton is as programmed a robot as R2-D2 in Star Wars. If she doesn't have a planted question that she can respond to with a vague, memorized, milk-toast answer, she cannot compete in the arena of ideas. This is the reason for primaries and not coronations. She has been revealed for what she is not and if the Democrats are to avoid another November nightmare, they have to nominate a candidate who can think on his feet and have a plan for dealing with the nation's challenges. Pick any of the others besides Kucinich and they will do better than Hillary as a leader.

The Tribune deserves real credit for the way it has handled this story. The article in the print edition of the Tribune by Peter Nicholas is particularly well done, fair and incisive. It becomes very clear that in spite of Mrs. Clinton's denials -- a standard practice in past Clinton episodes including the Monica affair -- Hillary was very much in on the fraud as the young lady implies. She pointsout that out of 250 persons in the audience, Hillary called on her! Stripping away the facade of Hillary Clinton, one finds there is nothing there, just a programmed automaton.

They all do it. Obama and Edwards included, even though just lied and said they don't. I suspect this student is actually a supporter of one of those two and a double agent in the first place.

Funny how this silly incident keeps coming up. During the YouTube debates awhile back Anderson Cooper chided Biden and his staffers in good-natured fashion for trying to plant their own video question in the debate. Everyone of them on the stage simply laughed it off as if to say, "nice try, Joe". No howls of dishonesty or indignation then.

Now the Hillary haters want to treat this standard campaign practice as if its Watergate. Get a life. This isn't bringing her down.

It is a shame that people let their hatred of someone become the whole issue. She is doing no more than any other politician out there. That's why they are politicians and not representatives. That is one of the many problems with American Democracy. You want to see a politician lie as routine, just listen to the current administration!

The current President appears frequently in "town hall" meetings to answer softball questions from pre-screened audience members that are more likely than not drafted by the President's handlers or party. Indeed, wasn't this his principal method of communication during his months-long campaign to reform Social Security? In addition, there is evidence that the President has worn a wire. Senator Clinton is engaged in what is, essentially, a marketing campaign, so although what her campaign did is an unfortunate reflection of our current political dialoge, it is hard to say that it is unwarranted given the environment. What the President did is exponentially worse; in that case, the administration substituted marketing and branding for policy, and refused to have his administration engage in an honest dialogue with the nation. An even better case in point is FEMA's fake press conference debacle.

Is 20 years of Bush/Clinton all we got here in this big country?

How sad it is that fact that this woman just cannot be trusted to be real. It is time for a female President of the United States, but not this woman. Listening to her makes me feel creepy and as if I have been slimed. Bring on a female with class, like Diane or Nancy.

It doesn't surprise me that she (Hillary) did that. Nor would it surprise me if a story broke accusing President Bush of doing the same during one of his press conferences. They're both less-than-honest.

The possibility of her winning means that the Clinton & Bush Dynasty could conceivably span 28 CONSECUTIVE YEARS! There's no way I could stand for that.

I'll vote Obama in hopes he gets the party nomination... if not, I'm all for Rudy, McCain or Thompson.

We DESPERATELY need a change - not more of the same!

Just read the book about her called "Rewriting History". It will tell you all you need to know about her and her motivations.

"amazing coincidence"

American Government is about deceit and corruption. We need a grass roots movement where citizens retake the government from career politicians who have made a travesty out of Democracy.
If this was some kid cheating on a test he'd be expelled or someone cheating on their job application - fired. But politician not a problem. I liked Bill Clinton, am not a Hilary basher and actually think it is quite alarming that her opponents are comfortable saying they hate her. Using the word hate so casually against political opponents and then enacting hate laws to combat hate is disturbingly insincere and illustrates just how low the opponents of Hilary Clinton are willing to go.
Unfortunately Hilary Clinton and the rest of them are all insincere and unable to stop the corrupt run away train of big government. They need to be all summarily fired as soon as possible.

Okay people, calm down about the democrat vs. republican vs. third party debate. I know this article focuses on Clinton but TRUST me, this happens with most every single politician out there. How do I know this? I used to work for a newspaper and we'd have to write down our questions in advance of a forum. Then someone on the side would hand-pick which questions could be asked. Convenient, isn't it?

This speaks to one of the reasons I hate politics because politicians act as if it's a game.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that this happens with any and all parties so don't go off thinking it's only Clinton.

I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but this article is ridiculous considering that the corporate media has failed us and has served as a "plant" for the last several years, completely failing to do due diligence and merely propagandizing for the government. Furthermore, I did not see any such discussion of Jeff Gannon, the former prostitute who was brought into the White House by Karl Rove as a plant. Why do you, and the disingenuous corporate media as a whole, apply a lower standard to people already acting in the capacity of the president, or speaking for the president, than people merely seeking the office?

It's bad journalism and a total lack of principle (and regard for accurate reporting) just like this that sold people on the misrepresented soundbite that Al Gore claimed to have "invented the Internet" and sold that swift boat garbage in the last election, while at the same time, playing PR agency for the White House ambiguously discrediting Dan Rather's report regarding Bush's abdication of service to his country in spite of the fact no evidence was ever brought forth showing that the documents upon which the report was based were actually false.

Reports such as this do a disservice to the entire journalism profession and are an affront to the notion of an "impartial," "objective" and "free" media. The corporate media is actually a disservice to the nation. The corporate media is nothing but a propaganda agency promoting the interests (both financial and political) of their corporate masters, and the people masquerading as "journalists" who work for them are merely tools being used to promote their owners' ideologies. There's no credibility in reporting anymore; hence, why private blogs are more reliable than the paid propaganda agencies trying to pass themselves off as journalists.

"Is 20 years of Bush/Clinton all we got here in this big country?"

^^^

KB -- I'm sure the patriots are rolling in their graves, considering that they fought a war to free us of monarchical rule. Now, we're looking at the possibility of 28 years of "rule" (because some time ago both the public and the politicos forgot that we elect representatives, not kings and gods) under two families.

And if these families are the "best" that the USA has to offer ... well, it's no question why we're in the slide that we're in.

While I strongly believe that the public should be at liberty to ask whatever questions of candidates they desire, why does this story focus 100% on Senator Clinton?

This was an adult college student. Why not simply refuse to ask a question if you couldn't use your own? Because you wanted to be agreeable? You can't scream for democracy and then refuse to stand up for your rights when presented with an opportunity.

This is a pathetic story.

Comparing Joe Biden to HRC is ridiculous. A monkey in the senate for as long as he has been could garner his poll numbers.

It is also dishonest to say Edwards and Obama do it also without proof. It is a typical Clinton tactic - deflect the fact that you we caught by attacking others.

Her campaign was caught and they denied it. That they planted questions and that they then denied it is very disturbing. I personally don't want four years of that modus operandi in the White House.

So when mysteriously the same "young working single woman" shows up for Rudy Ghouliani's campaign stops and asks the same question about the future of Social Security nary a word is said about it in the so called liberal MSM. Yet when Hillary is caught, the story doesn't stop being told. Guess Ghouliani using planted questions doesn't fit the narrative the MSM is using to try to sell their product. Love to hear a right winger comment on Rudy's planted questions.

Obama did the same thing by having to "plants" at the diner to make it look like a spontaneous meeting between him and to "regular guys" seated at the diner. In fact they were the sons of one of his campaign workers who was an Iowa politician.

I have said from the beginning hillary is the worst choice. Boy, I live being proved right. Slowly but surely her true colors will begin to show. Gradually people will begin to realize her true motives. And a "governor" happens to endorse her?! Maybe she gave him some compensation she learned from Monica. MAybe the guy smokes cigars?!
hillary will lose!

JT, try and sell that drivel as much as you want. It won't fly. They all do it, including Obama and Edwards.

And comparing Hillary to Biden seems perfectly sensible, since they are running against each other in the same campaign in case you haven't noticed.

GW said ... "This episode should send the message out to all the young voters about the importance of character and the need to select leaders who lie and are deceptive."

Kind of like the current occupant who lied and deceived about WMD's to get us into this quagmire of a morass? I think I'll vote for a Democrat instead.

Hillary's planted questions have been going on for months, and the only amazing part of the story is that the media has taken so long to pick up on what has been happening with her campaign. When Hillary spoke at the Quality Inn/Highlander in Iowa City on April 3, 2007, she arrived late and kept the crowd waiting for about 40 minutes as she huddled in a back room with Johnson County (Iowa) and Des Moines party functionaries. Once she was introduced by Johnson Co. Supervisor Sally Stutsman and former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack, she gave her prepared speech and then took about a half-hour's worth of questions from the audience, which surrounded her on four sides with Hillary at the middle of the indoor open square space.
To put on the appearance of herself as the family values/loves kids candidate, about midway through her Q & A session Hillary took a rather long and highly scripted question which a schoolgirl spent about a minute reading from a piece of paper she (the girl herself) held, as the girl faced in the direction of the media risers and their cameras. The girl had been positioned in the front row, at the center of her quadrant of the audience. After Hillary gave her "isn't that cute" response, evidently imitated from the style pioneered by Art Linkletter half a century ago, she resumed taking questions from adults.
Finally, after another 10-15 minutes of Hillary ignoring children, Christie Vilsack rose and interjected, "it's almost time to go, time for one more question." On that signal, Hillary went straight to a schoolboy located in the front row, middle of the audience, 180 degrees opposite from the schoolgirl. Once Hillary gave another "isn't that cute" response to the boy with his back to the cameras, the Q & A was indeed over, and the crowd started dispersing.
The whole thing was as patently contrived at the schoolkids who provided "happy Chinese children" background for Nixon on his historic trip to China, viz. kids who had their jump ropes and hair ribbons confiscated as soon as Nixon left his outdoor appearance site. So, I went to look over the kids in the Quality/Highlander audience a little more closely. The girl and her mother were rewarded by having their picture taken with Hillary. The boy was wearing a Hillary staff badge. Just prior to this event, Hillary had promised ex-Gov. Tom Vilsack, who was there with Christie, that she would help him retire his campaign debt from his recently failed presidential bid. --END--