CNN Spokesman Confirms Network Chose "Diamonds And Pearls" Question
Okay, we've got some more detail for you on the controversy surrounding CNN and the girl who asked Hillary whether she prefers "diamonds or pearls" at the close of last night's debate.
Specifically, a CNN spokesperson confirmed to me that the network chose that question and asked her to ask it.
But in the network's defense the spokesperson also says that the girl wasn't "forced" to ask it. She submitted the question in advance -- it was her question -- and voluntarily agreed to ask it. CNN selected the question and asked her towards the close of the debate if she wanted to ask it. She said yes.
As you may have heard by now, the girl said on her MySpace page that she was forced to ask this question and that she would have preferred to ask one about Yucca Mountain. She said this in response to the storm of criticism and ridicule the question has since received.
And it looks like the girl is right: Though she did submit the question, CNN did select it and ask her to pose it.
Hillary's rivals are accusing CNN of going soft on the frontrunner, and they're pointing to this question, among other things, as proof of this.
Here's how the whole thing unfolded, according to the spokesperson. Questioners were told in advance that they didn't want duplicate questions to be asked on topics that were already covered. The spokesperson argues that Yucca Mountain had already been discussed for some time as the debate wound down last night.
According to the spokesperson, as the debate drew to a close, CNN wanted to ask one last question. A CNN employee (it's unclear who) asked the girl if she wanted to ask the "diamonds and pearls" question. She said yes.
A CNN official is already on record telling Marc Ambinder that she chose the question. But as the above makes clear, CNN's spokesperson is confirming that the network in fact chose it.
So this is both better and worse for the network. On the one hand, it's better because the question was originally submitted by the girl, and it's obvious that the girl was hardly "forced" to ask this; rather, she was offered the opportunity and took it. The network wanted to close on a light question, and they chose this one.
On the other hand, the network is confirming that it did in fact choose a question that quizzed the first credible female Presidential candidate on her taste in jewelry. That's confessing to some pretty questionable taste.
Here's vid of the question:
Comments (110)
Dan wrote on November 16, 2007 2:24 PM:I'm not sure I get the controversy here. CNN was abysmal in its conduct of this debate as a whole, yes.
But, no one FORCED the girl to ask the question. If she was so embarrassed by it, she shouldn't have submitted it AND she could have refused to ask it.
I don't get the issue here.
Greg wrote on November 16, 2007 2:27 PM:basically here's the deal. on the one hand, you're right. no one forced her to ask it.
on the other, she's 15, and the network is presumably run by adults. and they chose this question and asked her to ask it, which is pretty bizarre.
I'd say cnn is guilty of poor taste, more than anything else...
seanh wrote on November 16, 2007 2:28 PM:Interesting update. It seems pretty odd that CNN steered the debate towards this question to end the night. Maybe after the equally ridiculous Obama Halloween question, the Kucinich UFO inquiry, CNN just thought it was Clinton's turn for an irrelevant, waste of time question. I find it pretty hard to believe that this student honestly only wrote two questions down, one about the Yucca mountain nuclear storage controversy, and one a bit of vacuous tea-time trivia. Coming from the 10 year old daughter of a NV voter, I might buy CNN's side of the story, but it seems highly unlikely a college student would honestly submit that question ahead of time.
More interestingly (I'm not sure if this has been noted before), she seems to toss an insult on stage as the hoopla resulting from her question starts to die down. She says, "It's the only thing shining up there," as the CNN rep and Blitzer quickly shuffle onwards to close out the festivities. I hope that last statement was an insult, and may be an even better indication that she wasn't proud of the question.
seanh wrote on November 16, 2007 2:32 PM:15 Greg? I think her myspace profile was set to 15, only because she's trying to shut out the curious. The privacy settings, at age 15, would keep out any prying eyes. At the beginning of her question, she says quite clearly that she's a UNLV student. Unless she's some sort of savant, I doubt she's attending UNLV at 15.
I only mention this, because I find it hard to believe an intelligent sounding college student would honestly have submitted that question. Such a questions isn't out of the realm of possibility, especially if the CNN questionnaire prompted potential voters for a "fun question", but it seems pretty unlikely.
anonymous wrote on November 16, 2007 2:39 PM:Clinton's opponents think this was an example of CNN going easy on her? Hellooooo--this one made most women (and many men) across the country just cringe at CNN's bad judgment. The message is that the gals are more interested in fashion than in foreign policy. Way to belittle the frontrunner in a wholly gender-based way.
liberalminded wrote on November 16, 2007 2:40 PM:uhh... first credible female presidential candidate?
Shirley Chisholm won the New Jersey primary, which I would say makes somebody pretty "credible".
get your history right.
mroom wrote on November 16, 2007 2:40 PM:Wasn't there a "boxers or briefs" question at some debate once? I presume this is the female version of the silliness.
pacc wrote on November 16, 2007 2:42 PM:Non-issue.
Great response by Senator Clinton.
Outside the beltway wrote on November 16, 2007 2:43 PM:Edwards was right CNN was planting questions
FYI Nevada's progressive blogs think HIllary supporters in Nevada are creeps
http://mysilverstate.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=F2AF858F94BBB08BD5D66FFAC1B80D8F?diaryId=347
From her comments on the Myspace page, it sounds like she probably had three or four "normal" questions and threw the diamonds one in there since they instructed audience members to include "light/fun" questions as well. I am guessing she didn't imagine they'd really want her to ask that one. Then, all of a sudden, some producer or moderator is telling her, "well, we've got only a few seconds here and we want to close on something light. How about you ask her the diamonds and pearls question?" I noticed how nervous some of the otehrs were when asking their questions. Perhaps she was nervous, too, and she just said OK. I mean, I feel bad for her. It was pretty embarrassing.
If it were me, and I had just scribbled down some ridiculous question like that to round out the five, I'd probably tell them to have someone else ask it. But then again, if I couldn't think of five real questions, I'd just submit four.
Greg wrote on November 16, 2007 2:43 PM:re first credible female prez candidate, i meant "first with a credible shot at winning presidency"
What makes matters worse is that Wolf cut off a pretty interesting answer from Bill Richardson in order to ask the fluff question.
IMO, better to close off with Bill's full response, thank the candidates, and call it a night. To end the debate with such a poor question was bad... to cut off a real answer to do it is worse.
Al M wrote on November 16, 2007 2:52 PM:One thing I didn't hear from CNN was full disclosure by Campbell Brown who's husband was a "Bushie" and now works for Mitt Romney.
Callimaco wrote on November 16, 2007 2:56 PM:"Wasn't there a "boxers or briefs" question at some debate once? I presume this is the female version of the silliness."
I think it would have been hilarious to ask HRC the boxers or briefs question that was asked of her husband so many years ago.
Tyson wrote on November 16, 2007 2:57 PM:I think everyone here is missing the point and import of CNN asking this question. The implied message behind this question is: Women (i.e. Hillary) are too concerned about womanly things like whether they look better in pearls or diamonds to be trusted with the Presidency. CNN and the people who schemed to air that question are subliminally playing on such misgivings. Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern. The "bitch" question, and all the attention given to Hillary's wardrobe, cleavage, and laugh, they all serve the same purpose of subconsciously suggesting the message, "Let's not take her seriously because she's a woman.
Chairman Mo wrote on November 16, 2007 2:57 PM:The pearls question proves that Blitzer is a moron. You would think that someone as ugly as Blitzer would have to be competent to be on television. CNN could replace him with any run-of-the-mill gameshow host or weatherman and not suffer any ratings drop at all.
In the context of the recent weeks of media buzz over Senator Clinton and the "woman card", the mere act of just asking it strengthens her position, in particular among women.
Why are we surprised. the MSM always ends up making the choices. Can't have a debate without some fluff on diamonds. Next time it will be buttons and bows. Does anyone at CNN or MSNBC know what the word debate means? And BTW pass that on to Chris Matthews. He is heading for a heart attack; he needs help. He needs a manly man to run for President.
Chairman Mo wrote on November 16, 2007 3:07 PM:Would CNN dare ask Senator Obama whether he will be serving watermelon or fried chicken in the White House?
On the Clock wrote on November 16, 2007 3:09 PM:Hey TPM Team:
Last night's charade presents a perfect opportunity to ask you to dig into the Commission on Presidential Debates? Their website is about the least informative and sporatically updated on the entire internet, especially for an organization that overseas such an important function.
Is it OK with the CPD, for example, for the broadcaster to choose the public's questions and present them as unscripted?
Michael wrote on November 16, 2007 3:09 PM:Tyson, huh? You are way, way over thinking this one to try to spin it as a subliminal attack on clinton II. She's the one playing the gender angle. She is loving the b*tch story and I wouldn't be surprised if that woman who asked it wasn't a clinton supporter or plant. Finally, the media by and large has been playing her up as inevitable and giving her a free pass.
colonpowwow wrote on November 16, 2007 3:10 PM:Dear liberalminded:
As someone who was active in the Democratic Party back then, and as someone who always liked Shirley Chisholm a lot, it's really a stretch to call her candidacy credible if by credible you mean a serious contender.
Hillary has been considered as a serious Democratic presidential contender since before she even ran for election as a senator.
It is nice of you to mention her.
mitch coleman wrote on November 16, 2007 3:11 PM:Don’t you get it? Liz Phair wrote a song called “I kissed a girl.” In it, one line goes...”they can have their diamonds, we’ve got our pearls.”
The pearl is a woman’s clitoris. Hillary was being asked whether she preferred men or women, albeit in a very sly way. Nobody but me caught this? Maybe I’m nuts.
Mitchcol
Big River Bandido wrote on November 16, 2007 3:14 PM:Why doesn't some candidate stand up and ask why presidential debates have to be "sponsored" by the media? News conglomerates have shown their complete lack of objectivity time and again. They've shown they can't put on debates with the decorum, sense of civic responsibility, and seriousness of purpose which they demand. They have turned a potentially valuable campaign exercise into a farce — a commercial for their own brand and a tool for implementing their own agenda, which bears no relation to that of the public. I don't even watch these things any more because they are such a joke.
We were well served when the League of Women Voters ran the presidential debates. But the so-called "news media"? Completely incompetent.
linda wrote on November 16, 2007 3:17 PM:***and I wouldn't be surprised if that woman who asked it wasn't a clinton supporter or plant.***
yep, the clenis is responsible for everything...
Sandi wrote on November 16, 2007 3:24 PM:It is odd that Hillary is criticized for playing the gender card. But then she has to field ridiculous gender-based questions like this one.
dcshungu wrote on November 16, 2007 3:24 PM:Chairman Mo wrote on November 16, 2007 3:07 PM:Would CNN dare ask Senator Obama whether he will be serving watermelon or fried chicken in the White House?
Exactly...
I am at a loss as what really seems to be the issue here. Is this the worst question ever asked a politician in a debate? For crying out loud, this girl is just 15 years old! CNN just wanted to end the debate on a "lighter note" (an adolescent girl asking a woman candidate about women stuff). There was no ulterior motive on their part at all, but leave it up to the msm/blogosphere noise machine to elevate this to the level of high crimes and misdemeanor.
This is no more than a tempest in a teapot, if there ever was one, as I do not see how harping on this issue would solve a single problem affecting America today.
RWN wrote on November 16, 2007 3:35 PM:Listen, CNN wanted to finish on a light touch....making the debate a news show...plus it still was a directed question...and directed towards a candidate that could only leav positive marks.
One good thing the polls seem to reveal a move where the electorate are getting serious and moving the meter away from Corporate candidates. Huckabee on the GOP and Obama, Edwards and Kucinich on the Democratic side.
hwc wrote on November 16, 2007 3:48 PM:Who forced Tim Russert to ask Obama about his Halloween costume?
Official A wrote on November 16, 2007 3:51 PM:The debate was a farce long before this question was asked. Wolf's "yes-or-no" cross-examination of the candidates was mind-numbingly simplistic. Democracy is dead as long as we allow sound-bytes life Wolf Blitzer to call the shots.
Yes, Wolf, there is such a thing as a stupid question, and the CNN team proved it over and over again last night.
Nauseating.
Official A wrote on November 16, 2007 3:55 PM:RWN wrote: "Listen, CNN wanted to finish on a light touch."
Listen, the Republic is dying with a delicacy that would suit CNN's quest for the light touch, I'm sure. It's just fucking hilarious.
Wolf can stick his ballpoint where the sun don't shine.
There are lots of ways to "finish the debate on a light touch" without singling out the sole female candidate for a ridiculously condescending, gendered question that implies she is (or properly should be) all about clothes and jewelry instead of substantive policy issues. She's running for president, not for Vogue editor, for Pete's sake. If CNN wanted a "light" question, there are plenty available that aren't designed to paint her as unserious. Instead, they show once again their fundamental unseriousness.
Chairman Mo gets it--imagine someone asking Barack Obama if he can swim well enough to use the White House pool or if he'll play gospel music at state dinners.
I can't believe so many of you don't get this.
Anonymous wrote on November 16, 2007 4:03 PM:dcshungu wrote: "This is no more than a tempest in a teapot"
Maybe, if all you want to do is pick winners and losers in a reality show. On the other hand, if you hate to see the fourth estate go the way of the first three, it's not quite so trivial.
Here we have male-prostitute Jeff Gannon asking softball questions of the president without so much as WH press clearance, the US Government packaging PR as news, FEMA faking news conferences, and CNN planting stupid questions in its audience as if they were real questions.
This is no laughing matter. It's dishonest and insulting.
Jenifer wrote on November 16, 2007 4:03 PM:Luisa choose to ask the question--she could easily have said no. Yes, CNN is pretty lame in this whole mess, but this student looked like an idiot and now wants to be a victim. Whatever happened to "JUST SAY NO". Pretty simple Luisa.
Official A wrote on November 16, 2007 4:07 PM:anon wrote: "I can't believe so many of you don't get this."
But don't you see, it's even worse than the gender-bias of the question, it's the packaging of entertainment as serious news that's the real threat here.
I want a competent president, not a witty one who just is quick on his/her feet.
I know, I know. It's asking too much.
Tyson wrote on November 16, 2007 4:09 PM:Michael, perhaps you're under-thinking it. Have you ever considered that Hillary is addressing the gender issue because she *has* to in order to have a viable candidacy? Even by calling it playing "the "gender angle," you're assigning a negative quality to her tactics, whereas I see them as shrewd, intelligent, and indicative of good leadership: turning a potential liability into a strength.
The issue that I am raising, however, is beyond whether or not Hillary is guilty of "playing the gender card," or if doing so is something to be frowned upon. The real issue is this recurring pattern of manipulating public perception of candidates by redefining them as a caricature of their most negative or divisive trait.
For example, the "whisper campaign" against McCain in the 2000 primaries impugned him as insane and compromised as a result of his POW experience. In 2004, Kerry was portrayed as a New England liberal elite. In the 2006 Tennessee senate race, an ad was run in which a blond bombshell winked and blew kisses at Ford, the Democratic (and Black) candidate.
When CNN asks Huckabee or Romney whether they prefer diamonds or pearls, that's when I'll be convinced that that question was not part of this pattern.
Offcial A wrote on November 16, 2007 4:11 PM:Jenifer wrote: "Luisa choose to ask the question--she could easily have said no."
How old are you, Jenifer? Are you closer in age to Luisa or to CNN? Remeber what it was like to be a 15-year-old? Luisa does. Remember how it feels to be an adult and act like as ass? CNN ought to.
I wonder what Prince thinks.
Official A wrote on November 16, 2007 4:14 PM:Tyson wrote: "The real issue is this recurring pattern of manipulating public perception of candidates by redefining them as a caricature of their most negative or divisive trait."
Precisely. And it's not always "light-hearted" either. That's why Kucinich had to field a question about his loyalty to labor unions when all the other candates got to talk about education.
Wasn't there a "boxers or briefs" question at some debate once? I presume this is the female version of the silliness.
You are incorrect.
The female version follows:
"Full, landing strip, or shaved?"
Official A wrote on November 16, 2007 4:16 PM:Jerkstore wrote: "I wonder what Prince thinks."
He's probably thinking it's time to change his name. Love YOUR moniker, though.
And while we're on the subject of journalistic integrity...is Campbell Brown still married to a Republican operative?
Cherry wrote on November 16, 2007 4:26 PM:mitch coleman wrote on November 16, 2007 3:11 PM:
Don’t you get it? Liz Phair wrote a song called “I kissed a girl.” In it, one line goes...”they can have their diamonds, we’ve got our pearls.”
If you're gonna quote a song, get the artist right. It was Jill Sobule who wrote said song, and somehow i doubt Luisa has ever heard of her.
jollyroger wrote: "Full, landing strip, or shaved?"
Front door, or back door?
Feed that one to the next 15-year-old that comes along. Bill did.
Yuk, yuk.
Look out for the next wrap-up question:
Does the carpet match the drapes?
Shameful. Canada's looking better and better.
esmense wrote on November 16, 2007 4:46 PM:I cast my very first vote for Shirley Chisholm in the California primary -- and haven't had an opportunity to cast one I could feel as good about since. But, come on, I cast that vote as a hopeful statement about the distant future -- not because I thought for one second Ms. Chisholm had, at that time, a "credible" chance at the nomination.
As for the notion that CNN thought the "diamonds or pearls" question did Clinton a favor -- rather than intending it as a sexist dig. How naive can you be?
Imagine if the young woman had instead asked wealthy populist Edwards which he preferred -- Ferrari or Porsche? How harmlessly would you think that was intended?
NCSteve wrote on November 16, 2007 5:03 PM:Okay, I admit I blew this one off specifically because the idea of a debate moderated by the Wolfie and ther est of the vacuous, vapid halfwitted content providers that CNN misleadingly refers to as "journalists" was just too much to bear. As a result, this time, I'm just like the other 98% of the country that didn't watch it and I got nothin' on what happended there.
However, Eric Alterman was apparently there, in person, and he says that CNN producers were whipping the croud up and encouraging them to cheer, which, he says, at least encouraged the booing and other disruptive behavior.
http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200711160005#1
CNN, however, is reporting on the booing as a big part of its debate story without noting that its own producers had a hand in encouraging it.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/debate.follow/
I'm sorry, but this is beyond dishonest and into the range of flat-out corrupt. First they make the news, then they report it. CNN: clearly the second "N" stands for "infotainment."
gavin immerson wrote on November 16, 2007 5:19 PM:In civilized lands, elections, sometimes, last as long as six weeks.
Endless, mindless, line-ups where nitwits pose puzzlers are a curious, American masochistic multi-flagellant, consonant with Yr. constant torture fetishes.
For MSM, this is the money, no sideshow.
Mitch C. (above) is bang en point.
The Wolf rarely grasps the situation.
Any candidate, Ms. Hills. incl, should respond to similar slanders with:
"Not germane, Fuck Off."
Dittoes would dither, + a weary World
Would Cheer, Brava.
It was a monumentally insulting question, and perfectly illustrates the trivialization of politics while the world is, almost literally, burning.
Just to set a record straight, IIRC Bill Clinton was asked the boxers-or-briefs question, not in a presidential debate, but in the Q-and-A portion of a student forum. Something in the back of my mind tells me the forum was sponsored by Rolling Stone, but I could be wrong.
Finally, rotten question or no, Hillary missed her chance. She should have answered, "I think Mr. Giuliani looks *much* better in pearls."
anon wrote on November 16, 2007 5:27 PM:Official A: "But don't you see, it's even worse than the gender-bias of the question, it's the packaging of entertainment as serious news that's the real threat here."
I do see. But given that CNN and its competitors have been committing that sin 24/7 for years now, I thought I'd focus my outrage on the very particular way they packaged it in last night's final question.
Plenty of threats to go around.
jollyroger wrote on November 16, 2007 6:19 PM:Something in the back of my mind tells me the forum was sponsored by Rolling Stone
Close. MTV
Jim H wrote on November 16, 2007 6:22 PM:Well, of course our nets are bogus pieces of beef jerky. They're commercial TV post-OJ! If anyone is surprised that the "forum" style of participation is getting rigged, kindly report to kindergarten.
If we want anything different, we need to go to required, non-commercial debates held according to a format set by the Congress. Otherwise, no producer in the world ISN'T going to rig questions. They want to know what's coming. They don't want the "tase me bro" guy standing up and wasting some valuable airtime. Sorry.
Je wrote on November 16, 2007 7:03 PM:Maybe they should have asked her if she prefers boxers or briefs, like that other moron asked Slick Willlie Clinton back in the day before MTV became CNN.
karen schell wrote on November 16, 2007 7:23 PM:CNN & Blitzer obviously took the Clinton campaign's strong warning to not ask Hillary any real questions very seriously.
Wake up. Let there no longer be any doubt that CNN is pulling for Hillary Clinton. Bash Fox News all you want for bias. CNN's Hillary machinations are even more dangerous and deceptive. Its not like Cavuto and Gibson claim objectivity. CNN is officially trash TV. I wonder what Ted Turner thinks of what has become of his baby.
paul wrote on November 16, 2007 7:34 PM:It's a disaster for hrc.
I don't blame her for the actual incident, which she clearly had no direct knowledge, but this happened in a week when it was becoming clear that her appearances elsewhere were scripted.
CNN went out of their way to do her a favor, but this one is going to add to the pile of crap she is in...
BTW-wassup with the BAD plastic surgery? Hillary looks like a muppet, Biden had something wierd going on with the forehead...
basically if you are getting elective surgery in order to look young, you had beter be able to pass it off, otherwise you look like a person failing pathetically to look young.
Don't get me started on Fred.
Ken Stevenson wrote on November 16, 2007 7:57 PM:One could only imagine the hysterics in the main stream media if Foxnews chose such a softball question to be asked at a Republican debate.
jgerth wrote on November 16, 2007 8:25 PM:Over the last few months it seems clear to me that TPM is endorsing, or at least favoring, the Clinton campaign in this primary. They have rushed to here defense on numerous occasions, this is no suprise. She has been caught with plants before, she has played the gender card, and I think it all boils down to DC politics as usual. Her husband refuses to release archival information and she hides behind a vail of secrecy just as the current administration does. I say more fair coverage of all dem candidates.
jl55378008 wrote on November 16, 2007 8:43 PM:I'm pretty sure the "boxers or briefs" question was at a student forum sponsored by MTV.
Not quite CNN, but the two are getting closer every day.
joewweoj wrote on November 16, 2007 8:52 PM:What is with the use of the word "girl" to describe a UNLV student and young women who is presumably of voting age? Greg uses the moniker, "the girl" repeatedly in the article. The reference is patronizing, like calling an 18 year old man "boy."
I thought Greg's coverage of the Hillary gender card faux controversy indicated his lack of sensibility for gender issues in national politics. The writing here only adds to my doubt that Greg and TPM will be a useful voice for progressive _gender_ issues.
jmayland wrote on November 16, 2007 8:55 PM:
Many of the questions in these debates are cynical ploys, designed to be land mines (or Catch-22s) for the candidates. This one is no different:
If Hillary answers the question seriously, she's seen as frivolous and unworthy of the office.
If she takes offense, she's seen as a bitch.
The use of a 15 year old girl to ask the question was completely calculated by CNN. That way they thought they could get away with it.
I remember, during one of the Town Hall debates in the 2004 cycle, when John Kerry was asked by a cowering, whimpering blonde girl if he could promise her that her tax dollars would not be used to fund abortions. I always suspected that this girl was used by Republican operatives and now I'm even more sure that I'm right.
R wrote on November 16, 2007 9:00 PM:It sounds like they probably give you a piece of paper and they ask for several different types of questions, just in case another has already been covered. On it, there's a "silly and fun" category you must fill out just in case, and this girl just thought ok whatever diamonds and pearls. So it's not that she really cared about that, it was just her silly and fun question CNN had asked for.
Personally, I think the whole process is unnecessary. Even if a topic had been already covered, the questioner might have a specific question to something that wasn't covered, or makes them clarify their answer.
Why is a silly and fun question so important anyway? We need to hear about specific positions on important issues.
Jenny Bea wrote on November 16, 2007 9:07 PM:I'm not quite sure why people think she's 15- they said at the debates last night she was going to UNLV. However, more research was performed.
Look at the transcripts of this debate: http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/15/se.02.html
It says her name is Maria Parra-Sandoval. Now if you research Maria Parra-Sandoval, you will find that she came from Mexico as a child, illegally. She has however, got her papers and is now legal. She went to college and started working for Harry Reid:
http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/files/2005_CLA_Yearbook.pdf
Later, she attended the 74th session in Nevada Legislature after having been invited there by Assemblyman Rubin Kihuen, elected in 2006, a member of the Nevada Assembly Democrats. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Journal/Assembly/Final/AJ036.pdf
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2006/apr/02/566679250.html
Further research also shows that the muslim man who asked the racial profiling question wasn't just some random guy either, but the PRESIDENT of the Islamic Society of Nevada. (Tell me, he has no special interest) Webseearches turn up possible connections to Harry Reid as well, and also indicate he's been going on about racial profiling since just after 9/11.
Now I don't want to say that guy has some bad intention- far from it- he seemed to be very supportive of our country after 9/11. But he's still the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada. Not some average joe, as we should believe.
http://www.lvmasjid.com/links/financial_needs.asp
Now, linked to Michelle Malkin's site is a story about the woman who first asked the question- the one who's sone is in the Marines. As it turns out, she has rallied against the war in front of Harry Reid's office in Las Vegas- she is an anti-war type. Upon further research (and looking into the after-debate-interview on CNN) her son goes by Christopher Gallagher, not Jackson, which is Mom's last name. Go to Michelle's website to pick up that link.
Ron wrote on November 16, 2007 9:18 PM:The real question is----Did Hillary have a copy of the questions before the debate?
FatBoy wrote on November 16, 2007 9:24 PM:It's pretty obvious to me now why presidential candidates from the Demcrat Party were uncomfortable participating in a forum, i.e. FoxNews, where they might actually have to answer hard questions.
Sean wrote on November 16, 2007 9:34 PM:Of all the umpteen things to be depressed about over the debate last night and the subsequent commentary on it, I think the hilariously sad obliviousness of the commenters here as to this girl's age is what pushes me over the edge.
Here is the order of events:
1. Woman stands up, introduces herself as UNLV student, looks 20-22ish, is identified as some Truman Scholar applicant and then asks a ridiculous question (that she created in her own retarded trivia-loving mind). She also adds that "it's the only shiny thing up there. I love shiny things! Shiny! Shiny! Shiny! Yay!" (ok, I added a few words on the end).
2. When controversy erupts, somewhere someone says she's 15 - probably because of a setting used to restrict privacy on myspace.
3. Commenter near top of thread refers to girl as "15."
4. Another commenter corrects this obvious error, since this is obviously a college student (isn't it more a sign of the downfall of the Republic if even our savants were asking trivial bullshit?).
5. A parade of other commenters obliviously ignore the obvious - and pointed-out error of "15" - and continue to repeat "15," "15,""15" over and over again. Now she has become officially 15.
6. The notion that this isn't a 15-year old is subsumed into arguments predicated on the proposition of putting oneself in the place of a 15 year old.
This is an absurd rabbit hole, underscoring the hopelessness for the Republic. Some of the commenters here clearly consider themselves people who can see how desperate our culture and nation has gotten in its standards of excellence, and yet they themselves aren't even up to basic competence. We get 19 tangents out and it's all murky and Rome dies.
There is despair here. Do you see it?
Jenny Bea wrote on November 16, 2007 9:36 PM:Ron- I feel that it could be that did ANYONE get a copy?
And did the DNC have anything to do with who was picked for questions?
deroyr wrote on November 16, 2007 10:18 PM:bill clinton tells 'sheep' blitzer what questions are to be asked and when.
'sheep' then complies with master bill so that he will allowed prime grazing after the show.
when will the 'sheep' be shorn?
Jenny Bea wrote on November 16, 2007 11:14 PM:Okay- she is NOT 15. HOWEVER
She is Maria Luisa...That is Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval. (When looking into her connections with Harry Reid, don't use her middle name as they didn't use it and nothing will come up.)
I am not going to repost all of my links here, I have posted them on this blog, under the same user name, so please go here and you'll see that I have links to back up EVERYTHING. I am also not the only one picking up on this stuff- as it seems blogs all over the place are picking up on this. Anyway, see this link for the list of my other links. (sorry to be redundant.)
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/cnn_planted_questions_for_the_democrats/
Vic wrote on November 16, 2007 11:57 PM:I would have asked:
"Bikinis or thongs?"
These debates are a waste of time. Can we say contrived?
Jenny Bea wrote on November 17, 2007 12:30 AM:Okay!
The cat's out of the bag!
the connection has been made between Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval and Harry Reid and now, thanks to the research of a commenter on Dan Riehl's site, Dan Riehl and Hot air, the connection has been made for the lady who asked the supreme court question.
Her name is LaShannon Spencer, and she worked for the democratic party in LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS. She just HAPPENED to be randomly picked for the debate last night? I think NOT!
The proof is in the pudding. Let's examine the pictures, and shrink your windows when viewing, so you can look at them side by side.
Jesus, but they look alike. Like EXACTLY alike. Ko-Winkie-Dink??? Yea, right.
So, now as soon as the media picks up on Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval, Kalid Kahn, and now Lashannon Spencer, the DNC is toast, and maybe CNN. I mean, you cant't get anymore blatant than that.
Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 12:54 AM:Seems as if the young lady was proud of her question, judging by her "theres only on thing shining up there" comment. Cnn loves hillary clinton. Why would they have James Carville, former Clinton advisor, as a correspondent. All he does is devote his time on air giving the Senator an A+ for the evening.
boogey wrote on November 17, 2007 12:56 AM:Seems as if the young lady was proud of her question, judging by her "theres only on thing shining up there" comment. Cnn loves hillary clinton. Why would they have James Carville, former Clinton advisor, as a correspondent. All he does is devote his time on air giving the Senator an A+ for the evening.
Maria Luisa Parra-Sandoval wrote on November 17, 2007 1:15 AM:I never said I was "forced" by CNN to ask the question. I was asked to memorize those two questions that were finally approved by CNN. I was asked to write both serious and "light-hearted questions" by CNN editorial producer. Since I was asked to have both of my questions memorized, my impression was that I would have the opportunity to ask both. I was supposed to ask the fun question first, then the serious question. But Suzanne and Wolf ended it there. That was it. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Maria Parra-Sandoval
Hi there Maria,
What was it like working for Harry Reid? What was it like attending Nevada and DC legislature? Was it fun?
I BET it was. Must be nice to have gotten to work so close to a great person, like Harry Ried. In his office no less. You must be proud of yourself!
Pretentous Ghandi Ninja wrote on November 17, 2007 1:58 AM:Big River Bandido asks logical questions.
Mike Walsh wrote on November 17, 2007 2:47 AM:Why, oh why, oh why does anyone give a damn what 1/2 of the Clinton Crime Syndicate says? Why are you watching? She is not an extremenly bright woman; she is a dangerous opportunist who would work against everything that still (slightly) binds America together.
Sheesh, these leftist wing nuts are not to be listened to? What is wrong with you people to even care what she, Obama, or this dwarf Kusinich have to say. They aren't like any democrats I know. They have destroyed a once great party and if they want this "big tent theory" they have to accept the clowns invited into the thrtee rings. Government does most things wrong. Yet you have the circus there talking about yet more abridgement of your rights. WAKE UP!
B wrote on November 17, 2007 4:03 AM:Shouldn't the headline be
"Diamonds Or Pearls" WOMAN Slams CNN
or
"Diamonds Or Pearls" STUDENT Slams CNN
she is over 18 she is not a girl
Would you say
"Diamonds Or Pearls" boy Slams CNN ?
No
"Diamonds Or Pearls" Girl Slams CNN
shouldn't this be
"Diamonds Or Pearls" WOMAN Slams CNN
or
"Diamonds Or Pearls" STUDENT Slams CNN
would you put
"Diamonds Or Pearls" boy Slams CNN
No
TO often woman are reffered to as girls it is insulting(.
(I am a male, 28)
UNLV student wrote on November 17, 2007 6:23 AM:Just so everyone is aware, not all UNLV students are like this girl. She should have known, judging by the other question-posers, that there would only be one question. Sounds like someone wanted their 15 minutes of fame. You are a disgrace to the rest of UNLV students and the state of Nevada. Shame on you.
DerekHalfhand wrote on November 17, 2007 8:16 AM:This is another example of corporate media control.
If you wonder why they treat us like we are dumb, it is said if you treat people like children, they will act like children. They are establishing Parent Child psychological relationship from the elite to the American people.
"Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" "a must read"
Dennis D wrote on November 17, 2007 9:14 AM:I would be interested in seeing the other questions submitted to CNN Censors. What questions did they reject ? CNN claims people submitted 5 questions each. So why are they blaming only the Yucca Mountain issue? The Diamonds question was the only NON YUCCA related question she submitted?
Jenny Bea wrote on November 17, 2007 9:57 AM:UNLV student- I'm quite sure no one thinks ill of the students there- there is a bad apple among every group. There are many smart people who succumb to the politic machine.
All I did to find out what I did was to look at the transcripts, put out by CNN, and put each name in the search engine. I nearly fell out of my chair when I discovered she worked for Harry Reid. I had no idea.
Some of the others, I couldn't dig up anything, so it's possible that they were either regular folks, or regular folks who were planted.
It is VERY VERY interesting to note that if you read the transcripts, LaShannon Spencer's name is listed as "Unknown". So they mean to tell us, they didn't know who she was. They mean to tell us that they had NO IDEA she worked for the democratic party in Little Rock Arkansas, althose years ago. She was a big wheel, and they didn't know. Right.
I spent more than 12 hours researching this, with the help of MAYBE 15 other people in the country, via the internet and message boards. We did it for the country, to expose the lies to us. I feel just as deceived as the rest of you.
guptha j wrote on November 17, 2007 10:17 AM:stupid liberals.
I'm with you, guptha j.
Cheeseheads faking crust!
Read this whole thread -- I dare you. How long would it take you to read it (I skipped over most of it)? How much collective time and energy have we, the supposed informed, enlightened progressives WASTED on this NON-ISSUE?? Could that time/energy have been spent more productively?
It's like CNN is this massive troll, and on behalf of the MSM they have pushed us all totally off course for hours and hours.
CNN wins. We lose.
Stop falling for it. Don't feed the trolls.
-- ARG
It's laughable how hard Malkin and her ilk try to gin up controversies and uncover "scandals" where there are none. Do you mean to tell me that most of the people in attendace at the Democratic debate are active Democrats? Horrors! Who do you think attends these debates? When people are cheering for different candidates, do you think they're just avergae Joes off the street who are so enthused by an answer to a debate question that they break out in cheers? I doubt that Harry Reid had to sneak anyone into the debate with a flase identity.
These wingnuts think that they're investigative reporters every time they Google a name. Is there any indication that Maria tried to hide her identity? Or should she have listed all of her political affiliations before asking her question?
And as to referring to her as a "girl," males in college are often referred to as boys. There's something to be said for monitoring the terminology we use to describe people, but the girl thing is just ridiculous.
ChrisO wrote on November 17, 2007 1:13 PM:"All I did to find out what I did was to look at the transcripts, put out by CNN, and put each name in the search engine. I nearly fell out of my chair when I discovered she worked for Harry Reid. I had no idea."
Jenny Bea, you idiot. If that's all you did, then maybe it wasn't exactly secret information. You "put each name in the search engine." What, did you just get your first computer? You think you and 15 other people are this brave little band saving the Republic? What delusions of grandeur.
And you almost "fell out of your chair? My God, it's like the DaVinci Code all over again. I wouldn't be surprised if you're abducted by the forces of evil any time now. Whatever you do, don't answer the door.
Jenny Bea wrote on November 17, 2007 1:52 PM:I have complied all my links to everything I've found here.
This is about the fact that the questioners were presented to the American People as being "undecided democratic voters", ordinary citizens, just like you and me, when in fact their political ties and other affiliations are all over the internet. Big backgrounds, these people have.
The only thing left to discover is who made the decision that these "average Americans" would get to ask the questions.
http://pcexposed.blogspot.com/
ultima thule wrote on November 17, 2007 2:04 PM:Thank you ChrisO, perfect response to Jenny BEA nutter at large.
Me_again wrote on November 17, 2007 2:34 PM:The whole CNN debate looked completely scripted and completely titled toward Hillary.
And that point where the national guardsaman was about to do his THIRD Iraq tour, but was worry about going into Iran? I mean what is one deadly war compared to another? Why wasn't he AND particulary his mom, simply worried about another Iraq tour?
Also noticed too how mad both Richards and Kucinich were that they didn't get the opportunity to address the guardsman and his mom? Pretty tacty of CNN.
It makes me ask the question, why does Murdock want Hillary to be president? Is it because she is a corporate kiss-ass? If it's CNN, FOX or MSNBC, than I wouldn't trust those networks because lately it looks like they are very much stacking the debate in favor of Hillary, picking our next president.
AND howver, I can certainly see why ExxonMobil and BP would prefer Hillary, because the Bush administration has so completely screwed up the war in Iraq to a point where Western oil contactors will be lucky to get ANY contracts ANYWHERE in the Mideast. And of course Hillary promised to do whatever it takes to protect our vital national interest - the code word for OIL and saying there will be presents in Iraq until 2013. That is an occupation.
Chris O- I responded to you in another message board. You can see my response there, I'm sure. Still waiting for you to refute and prove something incorrect.
It's alright, the NYT already reported about it, so it seems as if it's just not the right-wing conspiracy. Or a "Fire doesn't melt steel" conspriacy (which you probably beleive, anyway)
You just eat what you're fed like a good boy. Meanwhile, the rest of us know that what CNN presented as average "undecided democratic voters", regular folks, were anything but.
Who made the decision that these specific people would ask the questions? And don't you think it rather odd that LaShannon Spencer was the director of political affairs for the Democratic party in Little Rock Arkansas? Or that Maria worked for HArry Reid? Why, I thought these were random folks, that's what CNN said. Or perhaps you didn't read the transcripts.
I know, I'm an idiot. Is that all you can come up with? I'm still waiting from the last message board for you to refute what I've said, but all you seem to do is call those you disagree with (and can't come up with a disputing argument), idiots. Nice credibility. I won't hold my breath that you come up with something.
Jenny Bea wrote on November 17, 2007 2:50 PM:Gee, I guess it's not just the right wing nut jobs, but the left wing nut jobs are picking this up to. I thought it was just the republicans making this up.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/16/11735/441
They're just picking on Hillary.
Dave wrote on November 17, 2007 2:50 PM:Much ado about nothing. Like planted questions are something new?
Jenny Bea wrote on November 17, 2007 2:59 PM:Oh, OUCH! This hurts!
Gee- I'm not even on there.
Looks like Obama's camp is picking this up,too. Damn, I thought this was gonna stay in the conservative circle.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/flowerchild/CxpQ
Dammit!
It is all just theater of course. Student "props" ask the questions because it makes for a better show. But CNN is in control. Maybe the MSM and particularly CNN realize that Hillary is the only truly viable candidate for president. They know she has the Machine, and therefore is almost guaranteed to win. They want the appearance of a nomination race to be sure, since they are paid by the eyeball, but in the end they don't want to make Hillary angry. They want to be on the good side of the winner so they don't get their goody baskets taken away.
Fundit wrote on November 17, 2007 9:21 PM:uhh... first credible female presidential candidate?
Shirley Chisholm won the New Jersey primary, which I would say makes somebody pretty "credible".
get your history right.
My God, a monkey could do better than Shisholm and would be better looking than that ugly nigger!
Jenny Bea wrote on November 17, 2007 10:16 PM:http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307nixdebate.htm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3069.html
The democratic debate that was supposed to be held by FOX news was cancelled, because of their issue with fairness. It is note worthy to mention that the debate was going to be held in.....NEVADA. If FOX would have hosted that debate, they would have asked the questions.
I can certainly see why they would rather CNN moderate the debate in Nevada. They're so much more balanced, after all.
Randy Crawford wrote on November 18, 2007 12:26 AM: 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--
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--
CNN didn't really give the woman a choice. They told her "take it or leave it." Either you ask this question, or you don't get to participate.
More media control over what we say, think and do and we've entrusted it unto a network that brings us Glenn Beck....
RickZ wrote on November 18, 2007 2:25 AM:Someone here PLEASE delete the truly racist comment by 'Fundit' on November 17, 2007 @ 9:21 PM.
fauve wrote on November 18, 2007 4:24 AM:I have known for years that the Bushies have people who go around to discussion boards like this one with the express direction to paint critical Bush posters as "liberal nutjobs". Now, almost all of the campaigns use this tactic (In fact, you can see some Clinton plants on this very thread tag-teaming Jenny Bea between 1:13pm and 2:04pm today attempting to diffuse the situation early. Too late.)
I truly believe some of the polls are bought and paid for, leading to some early dramatic leads that catch press which further influence later polls leading to a bandwagon effect. I also think Bush is the connection to these large pollsters. Guiliani and Clinton are the chosen candidates of the *Bushes* If you think it's shocking he'd choose Hillary, you just have to remember a lil ways back when Bill made such good friends with Bush Sr. The deal was made right then. And, there's another reason Giuliani is so nostalgic for 9/11 -his future was secured shortly after by some kind of terror-love between the two.
My opinion - if there were no shenanigans - Ron Paul would be the Republican frontrunner, and Biden would now be battling it out to be the rightful Democratic one. The reason Ron Paul and Biden are at the bottom of the polls is because Clinton and Giuliani would both crumble in a frontrunner race with them.
And, you can guess that I positively believe that Bush lost both in 2000 and 2004, and was pushed over by Diebold.
And, no surprise to anyone anymore that Bush controls Fox and Clinton CNN.
This is not your mother's America.
JanM wrote on November 18, 2007 7:55 AM:Bah. I have no sympathy for the girl. She probably made a quick calculation her head: ask stupid question, or miss getting on TV?
We see which one won.
Ted Turner wrote on November 18, 2007 10:51 AM:
I am sure that CNN staffers are drooling over another Clinton presidency. After all, they helped the first Clinton win by constantly bashing the first Bush on an economy that was in an upswing, yet didn’t touch Clinton when he came with a half-dozen women accusing him of rape and other scandals in Arkansas.
We have a ton of laws regulating healthcare, engineer and other professions, but no laws regulating the media. These bastards in the media are out of control without any diversity of thought pushing their agenda freely thinking they represent the common folks. I would like to see some affirmative action and diversity of thought regulation in the sacred building for the Clinton News Network!!!
Mrs. C, I am SURE, is a 'pearls' kinda gal. Diamonds are sooooo "GOP"--Gauche, Ostentatious, Pretentious...
Someone should delete fundit's post...
fauve- my boyfriend and I were talking last night...we're conservative. However, if the republican debates are planted, or if their campagin speeches were planted I WANT TO KNOW! I want to know which news organization, which political party is cheating the integrity of Americans. Are we stupid?
If this were republicans, I'd be just as pissed. We are electing the President of the United States of America. This is not student council. This is not "Who's the most popular" or "who has the best comebacks". Our country is fvcked, thanks to Bush -and I HATE saying that, because I'm conservative- but I'm lying to myself if I don't admit it.
Having said that, we as a people are getting ready to chose the person who's going to be able to fix it. And we deserve an honest forum with which to find that out. That anyone would deceive us- no matter how big or small- is to take the integrity of the People and flush it. They don't respect us. They cannot accurately portray these people in a good light, to make Americans feel alright about them, so they LIE to us to make them look good, instead.
There are many liberals who don't think this is such a big deal- people plant all the time. If they're willing to swallow that small peice of dishonesty, what does that say about them?
How big does the lie have to be for you not to accept it? I don't lie. My honesty is worth more. Do you lie? How many lies do they have to tell us, before we call bullshit?
One lie is too many. You lie to me once, you'll do it again and again, because you got away with it the first time. This is NOT the first time CNN has done this. So, at least we can trust them to do it again after this.
fauve wrote on November 18, 2007 6:59 PM:jenny - i'm a tried and true liberal, and this just cements for me that this government is headed in a fascist direction. If Hillary or Giuliani are elected, I will be preparing my family to leave the country, ironically to Mexico.
fauve wrote on November 18, 2007 7:09 PM:Also, Jenny the Hillary plants are equivalent of FEMA's fake press conference and Alberto Gonzalez's White House tinged justice. And, that's the *actual* government lying to us. This is just how governemnt operates now. And, we haven't even touched on the Corporatism that controls the lobbyists who control legislation. I really feel it will be many years, if ever before we're able to return to a free country ruled by the people for the people.
Mouse wrote on November 19, 2007 1:43 PM:Response to multiple comments:
"Also, Jenny the Hillary plants are equivalent of FEMA's fake press conference and Alberto Gonzalez's White House tinged justice."
Correct. Fake News. No wonder people watch Jon Stewart. If you are going to watch fake news, get the real fake news instead of the fake real news.
"As for the notion that CNN thought the "diamonds or pearls" question did Clinton a favor -- rather than intending it as a sexist dig. How naive can you be?"
It's helping people (a) feel sorry for Hillary Clinton when they shouldn't and (b) ignore the larger fact that the entire event was stage-managed in a serious scripted way to help Hillary Clinton. Not just this question, but
multiple questions from a:
A Democratic Party bigwig,
An antiwar activist,
A Union official,
An Islamic leader,
A Harry Reid staffer,
A radical Chicano separatist.
"It's laughable how hard Malkin and her ilk try to gin up controversies and uncover "scandals" where there are none. Do you mean to tell me that most of the people in attendance at the Democratic debate are active Democrats? Horrors! Who do you think attends these debates?"
Wolf Blitzer called them "undecided voters", not activists.
Yeah, typical undecideds. Right on, Wolf. That's the scandal. The whole event was a stage-managed farce. Softballs and setups.
The Clinton News Network lives.
"One could only imagine the hysterics in the main stream media if Foxnews chose such a softball question to be asked at a Republican debate."
If the leftist Democrats hadnt put the kibosh on FoxNews doing the debate, we would have a much more interesting debate.
I'd love to see Hillary try to answer:
"Hillary, what accomplishment can you point to in your life that comes closest to the great job Rudy Guiliani did as mayor of New York in turning around that city?"
"I have known for years that the Bushies have people who go around to discussion boards like this one with the express direction to paint critical Bush posters as "liberal nutjobs"."
- Both sides play that game. thanks to the Hillary-boot-licking Media Matters, any criticism of Hillary is considered part of the VastRightWing conspiracy, and people with those opinions "right-wing nutjobs". Politics gets uglier on both sides. So much for reasoned measured debate and real dialog. The powers-that-be wouldnt want that - WE MIGHT FIGURE OUT THAT WE DON'T NEED THOSE POWERS THAT BE VERY MUCH AND CAN GET ALONG FINE WITHOUT THEM!
Exactly, the powers that be have been thrilled that anyone who cares about what happens in this nation is happy to just blame the other party. So, we've been so distracted by red vs blue that we dont realize that our freedoms have disappeared until ridiculous things like what happened with this debate are uncovered. Read Naomi Wolf's Shock Doctrine or a A Letter from a Patriot by Naomi Klein. I am truly, truly disheartened that no major media outlets, INCLUDING DRUDGE, are not all over this. They've decided to deflect attention away to a some scandalous information that Hillary MIGHT have about Obama. Oh please! If this isn't evidence that the press is no longer independent, coupled with the nature of this story in the first place, I really don't know what is.
I think it's really terrific that stories like this one are available on the web (and the means to uncover them), or else we'd never know the truth at all.
Revolutions have been fought over less than a growing list of liberties that are being taken away. Once, the Dems and The Repubs realize that the other isn't the enemy, watch out.
farush wrote on January 31, 2008 10:18 AM:twWfafa2 cool site!!! [url=http://farush1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://farush2.com faferh61
