Oopsie.

This is a waste of time. What ws the question and the answer? Maybe something more pertinent than this sideshow?

What's with the outrage about this post? It's certainly something that should be reported on and discussed. Nobody is claiming that this rather minor story needs to supersede news coverage of the Kerik indictment. Were those who are calling this a mere "sideshow" also calling the news reports about the fraudulent FEMA press conference such names? This may not be quite as bad as that, but it's the same basic principle: political deceit.

Get the planks out of your eyes, folks.

"One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask]'
Do not we all voters are barked at (to get attention) by the Media pundits how we have to think, why we have to vote or not vote particular candidate?
Look at number of Political Pundits (totally polarized fanatically) in the media whose goal is only to plant their dogmatic views (mostly self serving) on voters mind?

Wake up voters. Do not listen to these craps like ” that one is holier than other”. All politicians in one way or the other are crooks. It is the last resort to scoundrels.
You got to choose the one that is least harmful to this great country; you have plenty of time to do that – a year. Till then, just watch the fun. Do not get planted.

Great!We get to pick who is least harmful to the country?That is the choice we have? Also please check what you are writing in the first paragraph since it is not very clear as to what you are saying.

Unbelievable
Hillary is running a campaign out of Rove's playbook.

Maybe she can get FEMA for her next press conference.
OR Jeff Gannon for that occasional planted question

I think I'd probably vote for Elizabeth Edwards or Michelle Obama before I'd vote for her. It's getting harder and harder to answer the question of why Barack isn't doing better. He's done everything he's been asked and he's a much more graceful and eloquent candidate, so I just can't figure out why people are so hell bent on Hillary.
I just wish other people would think about this now, rather than after another November woulda, coulda, shoulda. I can't take 4 years of Rudy or Mitt.

Where's jan, dc or colon to defend this one? Hmm, any polls out to talk about?

I am sure her answer was just as vague and ambiguous as any other "answer" that she gives. The question is why plant a question when you aren't going to give a straight answer anyway. Kind of bizarre.

Anyone wih a straight face going to actually assert that this is even worth mentioning as in ANY way cpmparable in degree of importance to the FEMA lie-fest?
Please. The acting FEMA folks have responsibilities that
they made an utter mockerty of, during a massive state emergency and while on your and my dime. Then they LIED to the press and you and I about it, The matter of degree is absolutely germane here, and btw, I am someone who has absolutely ZERO use for Clinton as a craven candidate and politician. I somehow missed the part of the story wherein the Clinton staffers held the gun to the head of the student when they demanded of him or here to bring up a topic of probable nation importance.
Planks in the eyes? What is this, bible allusion day?
I am done, I'm not reading this tripe or posting anything more on this sorry "topic" . Musharraff is now possibly summarily convicting opponents of treason. There's only so much time to keep up with and - more importantly - ACT politically on current events, and baby, this isn't a subject that deserves more than a cursory mention. Have fun, gratuitious Clinton haters. Get a grip, and some PERSPECTIVE.

I've thought that time that Tim Russet and Hillary had their shared questions about what Bill said, looked to little to rehearsed.

It's like that time Josh Marshall said that Wes Clark went blastic on FOX News, cause it ain't called faux for nothing.

I know good and well that it was a stage event, and so I wonder about Hillary too. She really doesn't look like a change from the same old Bushism style of government, she is too much of same old underhanded beltway stuff.

I find it especially objectionable when, with so many would-be questioners raising their hands, she repeatedly calls on the shade of Eleanor Roosevelt, each time acting as if she was picking her at random, and had never seen her before.

The only thing I find interesting about this story is that it is yet another recent example of a "Clinton Campaign Makes Mistake" story (the mistake being planting the question with a student who might blab, rather than a well-known and loyal supporter as would be SOP). Of course all campaigns make mistakes, but I find it interesting that the press has decided to stop pushing the idea that Clinton's campaign has been flawless.

Socratic:

Would you be kind enough to explain how Obama is pandering to mining companies? Obama has been a leader on environmental issues in Illinois and the US Senate, and has consistently opposed the Yucca mountain nuclear waste dump.

And maybe you think that Obama was "pandering" to coal interests by saying that we should develop clean coal, but once again he is ahead of the pack in terms of thinking things through. While coal is definitely not the best option for us, he believes we need to be a leader in developing as clean coal technology as possible for a simple reason, that India and China have massive quantities of coal and are going to burn it. Those two countries will soon be the biggest polluters in the world, so there is benefit in us developing cleaner technologies that we can sell them.

Like Karl Rove did for George Bush, Hillary's team is staging scripted events that put her in the best light and insulate her from real people and tough questions. Hillary is as dishonest and inauthentic as George W. Bush. We desperately need CHANGE, not Hillary.

I knew the Senator was a little arrogant and scripted but this is verging on the ridiculous.

What to expect next: Just like the Bush supporters try to absolve their guy by saying, "Clinton did it, too", the Hillary supporters will try to absolve her by saying, "Bush did it, too". What else can they say, except 'everyone does it..... or Bush did it, too'? Pathetic in the extreme.

No different than Bush.Faux qestions & Faux answers.

"However, they deny that Hillary herself had any knowledge of this, or that she had been prodded to call on that particular student."

HA HA... Sounds a lot like "...but I didn't inhale!"

SLIMY!

I've seen videos of Obama doing Q&As with voters and he'll tell everyone his volunteers would come around with microphones and then he always says, "There are no rules, no plants, none of that."

So going by Obama's words, they DON'T all do it. That excuse isn't gonna fly, Hillary-backers.

Abe regarding:
and then he always says, "There are no rules, no plants, none of that."

For Obama to be saying this it means that it is well known that candidates are in engaging in this type of duplicity. Imagine, Hillary doesn't want to answer questions during debates and only allows certain questions to be asked by American citizens. She is doing this as a CANDIDATE it will get worse if she is elected. She will act like a grand PoohBAH, who doesn't deign to speak with the lowly subjects.

I suspect after Hillary got challenged by Rolph she knew she could not risk any more spontaneity when it comes to questions. That question allowed votes to see her real dismissive attitude as she attacked Rolph and NEVER answered his question. Both Bush and Hillary have to be scripted because there true character is oftputting, supercillious and insufferably arrogant. Hillary's is too to her 'vastrightwingintellect' and Bush's was due to his 'vastunkowingnesshavemore' attitude.

America does not need a repeat of Bush, only with a brain that would be immeasurably worst.

The Liberal Democratic party of the United States of America wrote:

"I see Hillary as Republiklan lite. If the Republiklan party wants to hit the poor over the head with a large trucheon, then Hillary will use a smaller truncheon.

I'm voting for Edwards."

Again, here are the comparisons for the times when Hillary and Edwards disagreed on their votes when they were in the Senate together. Please read and come back and say again who's "Republikan lite."

Although they often voted together along with most other Democrats, there were some times that they disagreed. Let’s look at a few of those times (and these are nearly all of those times).

From the Senate voting record:

Senator Edwards voted YES on the 2000 Bankruptcy Act (along with the Republican majority). Senator Hillary Clinton had not been elected yet, but it’s a bill that Bill Clinton vetoed as being “too harsh on America’s poor and middle class families.” It was a precursor to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act (that Edwards also voted YES on).

On the Wellstone Amendment to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act that would have exempted those made bankrupt due to excessive medical bills, Senator Edwards voted NO along with all Senate Republicans. Senator Clinton voted YES along with most Democrats including Feingold, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, and, of course, Wellstone.

On Paul Wellstone’s Amendment to 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act that would have recalculated the definition of monthly income to the advantage of poor and middle class families, Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with Boxer, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wellstone.

On Paul Wellstone’s 2001 campaign reform Amendment closing the loopholes for allowing for 527 group political TV ads. Ironically, since passage would have prevented the Swift Boaters in 2004, Senator Edwards voted NO. Senator Clinton voted YES on this Amendment.

On Senator Kerry’s amendment that would have provided 2:1 matching funds to Senate campaigns of up to $200, encouraging small donors like most of us are and increasing our contribution power, Senator Edwards voted NO. Senator Clinton voted YES.

Senator Bingaman offered an amendment that would have banned phony negative “attack ads” by requiring that vehicles that ran such ads would have to allow response time. Senator Edwards voted to table this amendment along with nearly every Republican. Senator Clinton voted along with most other liberal Democrats to further this amendment. (It was tabled, that is, killed).

On the initial budget guidelines sought by the Bush administration in 2001 (including his tax cuts), Edwards voted YES along with every Republican and Zell Miller. Clinton voted NO along with the rest of the liberal Democrats.

On Senator Bob Graham’s amendment to this tax cut bill which would have decreased the lower marginal rates for poor and middle class taxpayers, Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Wellstone, and 29 other Democrats.

Senator Feinstein motioned to send the tax cut bill back to the Finance Committee with orders to spread the Estate Tax exemption cuts more fairly. Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with most Democrats including Boxer, Feingold, Kennedy, and Wellstone.

Senator Wellstone presented an Amendment to No Child Left Behind to prevent it from being an “unfunded mandate.” Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with 30 other liberal Democrats.

Of course we know the famous Iraq War authorization vote where both Hillary and John agreed with and voted with the Republicans (and many other Democrats for that matter). I just thought you might be interested in a few of the votes where they disagreed on the record – not just from the sidelines where Edwards likes to sit and carp.

The cliché is that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. These are the facts from the Senate voting records.

John Edwards and his supporters claim that he is the progressive and that Hillary represents the status quo or is just a milder version of a Republican. Read these facts about their head-to-head voting records and be enlightened as to who stood most often with the Republicans and who voted most often with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It’s really no contest. Hillary has a 90% lifetime record of voting with the progressive Democrats (the 12th most liberal in the Senate), while Edwards lifetime liberal voting record stands at 78%.

Again, now that John Edwards stands outside the Senate he finds it easy to take potshots at Hillary. Oh well, that’s not really so hard to understand - seeing how he opposed her (and most other liberal progressive Dems) quite often when he was the Senator from North Carolina.

colonpowpow, wow. impressive. you have ready access to all the votes of our do nothing Congress.

You missed the message. One reason Edwards is a better candidate that Hillary is that he is no longer a Senator. Clinton has been a follow-the-leader place-holder in a DO-NOTHING Congress while her husband's political machine organizized her presidential campaign. Her horrible lack of good judgment has given George Bush authority to attack and occupy Iraq and now authority to attack Iran. The mere thougth of Hillary as commander and chief, waiting to see what the opinion polls tell her to do is SCARY. But most Hillary supporters know that she is just a stand-in, and Bill will have a hand on the wheel. Hillary's job will be to play "poor victim" to the male leaders of other countries who won't defer to her because she is a woman. WHAT A FORMULA FOR DISASTER.

So what if Clinton's corporate sponsored campaign set up a propoganda moment . . . It wasn't like FEMA answering questions about the California fires or something . . .

Oh. I sorry. It was exactly like the Bush lead FEMA press conference . . . But we can trust Clinton to stop this sorta malarkey after her coronation.

Why do I have a craving for oily gin and find myself terrified of the number 101?

Hillary Clinton is a slick and slippery politician, just like her husband. That doesn't necessarily mean that she wouldn't make a great president, just like her husband did. Who knows?

Wow. Pretty stupid of the Clinton folks. Sometimes you'd almost wish there was another credible candidate to consider. But all we've got is the Breck Girl and his Fraudulancy O-Bomb-A.

The ridiculousness of all this is that she's crushing in the polls. She's not in any need of foolish tactics like this. Fire those in her campaign who's idea it was and get back to work.

This was sooo dumb. And utterly unecessary.

Okay, it was a dumb thing to do, her staff did it, not her, and she apologized.

Now, how is it that staged events at diners across Iowa with messages from the "common man/woman" much less staged? It's not like campaign operatives aren't pulling people to these events, seeing who has the best gut-wrenching stories, etc. All of its contrived to win a state of what, 1 million people? (joke)

Who wouldn't give their left kidney to get someone in the audience at a presidential debate to ask something besides UFO's, drivers licenses and Social Security - say how to get out of Iraq, how to reduce Global Warming, how to deal with housing defaults, how to strengthen job performance while leveraging offshoring, how to reform the health system.

For Loki, people in the campaigns are fighting hard - that's a good thing. Sometimes they go over the top and do something stupid. I think the apology is completely sufficient.

Somebody had a good line over at Daily Kos..."It takes a Potemkin village".

Pathetic. It was pathetic when President Bush planted "reporters" at a press conference to ask a question and it's pathetic when Hillary Clinton does it.

“It’s not a practice of our campaign to ask people to ask specific questions,” said Mark Daley, Clinton’s Iowa Communications Director.

Oopsie. Looks like maybe this wasn't the first time they did this nor does it appear to be the work of some low-level rogue staffer.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/melber

Interestingly, however, I read about the new question plant story on ABC this morning. (To be clear, the attempted plant happened in April, but the story's "new" because we're just finding out about it, got that?) Then, when I went back to find a link and it had mysteriously vanished down the ol' memory hole. The link in the post from The Nation dead-ends.

Hillary opponents, fire up the nefarious all-encompassing invisable hand of the Clintons conspiracy theory of your choice. Hillaroids, insert "not a story, didn't really happen" theory here.

Stargazer said:

>>>>First, the reason for a campaign appearence is to give people a chance to meet the candidate up close and personal. The notion that it is a staged event and must be kept on message is the WORST aspect of political-propoganda. The participants in an event should determine what the topics are, not some pre-packaged, scripted, sight-and-sound plastic production team. THAT IS BUSH POLOTICS and we've had enoough of it.

Have you ever in your life followed a political campaign? B/c most events have themes pre-arranged by the candidates. It is basic political campaigning 101.

There are plenty of open Town Hall meetings. This event in particular was NOT a Town Hall meeting. It was a campaign stop with the theme being her new energy policy.

>>>And Ethan, I am a life long liberal/progressive registered, volunteering, campaign contributing DEMOCRAT. And I can tell you with no hesitation that I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. PERIOD. And if by some fluke she is nominated and elected, I will work day and night against every initiative she proposes.

I am sure you are a lifelong liberal and I applaud that. I really do. So am I. And I am far more liberal than you might think just b/c I am a Hillary supporter.

But stargazer, The last sentence in that graph is the single most ludicrous thing I have ever heard from a Democrat. You would work day and night to campaign against EVERY initiative? Give me a BREAK. That is *nuts*. Id love to see you campaign against a $20 BILLION dollar green cars initiative JUST b/c she wasnt your candidate of choice. Please. That is just inane.

You are obv MORE than free to back anyone you want in the primary, but if you really are a true-blue Democrat, then you would vote for Hillary in the general WITHOUT HESITATION if she becomes our party's nominee versus the GOP nominee. B/c to do otherwise is a vote for a continuation of the Dick Cheney Presidency. And you know it.

>>>Hillary Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is a dishonest, hypocrite, whose only qualification to be president is being married to a former president. We call that NEPOTISM, and Ameican democracy does not need to depend on two families for leadership.

Could have fooled me, but I recall voting for Ms. Hillary Clinton in the election for NY Senate. I recall being very proud of her service of my state (except for her vote for Iraq AUMF, on that I vehemently disagree). And I recall actually investigating the policy attributes of each Dem candidate and coming to the conclusion readily on my own that she is by far the most qualified individual to lead this country post-Bush. Last I checked she still has to win the election on her own. THAT is not nepotism. That is democratic system of governance. Name recognition helps, yes, but it also stands to hurt a candidate, as the mere mention of the word Clinton sends the Right Wing and idealistic ideologue Left into a freakin tizzy.

>>>The Clintons and the Bushes are corporate owned and protect the profiteering status quo, fueled by generous support from the oil industry, the defense contractors, the banks, WalMart, healthcare and drug companies.

To quote Stewie from Family Guy: "You must be shrooming". Most of Hillary's positions and plans would relinquish the grasp those fucked up industries have on the political apparatus. In fact, I think it's hilarious that you rant on and on about how Hillary is part of the "Bush-Clinton dynasty" when your comments are totally based on emotion and so devoid of fact that you sound like a neoconservative era 2004.... maybe not in explicit content but certainly in style and in total lack of appreciation for fact-based reality.

It's time you and all the Hillary haters stop being ideologues and start actually reading her actual plans if you want to be informed. For starters, look at the energy plan info I posted on my comment above. You know, the actual SUBSTANCE of the comment that you conveniently totally ignored?

Start there and maybe you will begin to see that politics is NOT 100% ideology, and that is IS 100% hard work and compromise with the many many many factions that exist in the world in which we live.

That said, I far from agree with every position she takes, however, in summation she is imho CLEARLY the best candidate and maybe the best PERSON in general to be President more than any other. Far more than any candidate with Barak coming imho a somewhat distant second (even tho I love him and think he ALSO would be one of our country's greatest Presidents ever).

Ethan, I absolutely reject your pronouncement that "true Blue Democrats" will line up behind Hillary Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton if she is nominated. I will gladly support any Democratic nominee except Hillary. I am an American more than a Democrat and supporting continuation of the Bush-Clinton status quo is not in the interest of this nation. Hillary is corporate-owned and will continue the same policies that have allowed conscionable profiteering by banks, oil companies, healthcare and drug companies, and war mongering defense contractors.

I stand by my statement that Hillary's only qualification is being Bill's wife. Sure, she ran for the Senate in NY twice WITH NO REAL OPPOSITION, spending record sums of money and with a machine that intemediated contenders. She has served as a follow-the-leader Senator in a DO-NOTHING Congress. The only actions worthy of note have been her votes to enable Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq, and authority to attack Iran. What a horrible lack of good judgment, hardly a qualification for president.

My comments are emotional Ethan, for sure. They are based careful study and observation, mixed with mounting frustration in watching American democracy crumble under the weight of multi-national corporate profiteering supported by the Bush-Clinton political machine.

With regard to Hillary's policy positions, get real. Give me a policy statement from Hillary and I will give you three from her that contradict it. She takes a stand and then qualifies it to death. She panders to all sides on every issue. Quoting Hillary? What a laugh.

And Ethan, type casting anyone who sees Hillary for what she is and OPPOSES her as a "Hillary hater" is Rove-Bush-Clinton-Penn formula politics. "If you don't support me, you're may enemy." I reject the politics of division, by Bush and by Clinton. We need to move forward and leave it in the past.

I don't hate Hillary, Ethan. If she wants to play do-nothing Senator and break Strom Thurmond's time in office, please please, that would be great. I am, however, scared to death that this dishonest, calculating, corporate serving, warmongering, unqualified, neopotist, will become president of the United States. It is ludicrous to even suggest it, much less support it.

Ethan, your efforts to bully people into supporting Hillary won't work. In fact, if the new polls signal a trend, Hillary's perfect campaign is backfiring, as people wake up and learn the TRUTH.

What CAN you expect when the woman insists on modelling her campaign on George Bush's, and takes Karl Rove as her guru? She is as fundamentally dishonest and disingenuous as Bush, so this really should not be a surprise.

Hillary, call me.

More disturbing to me is Hillary's tendency to say "Oh, that was my campaign staff's mistake and not mine." Excuse me?

First of all, I doubt that ANYTHING is happening in Hillary's campaign that she doesn't know about. What in her past history would make anyone believe that she isn't completely involved in the most minute details?

Secondly, a candidate is responsible for what their campaign staff does or says. No one really believes that a campaign staff is so independent as to do and say things that are opposite of what the candidate wants.

Edwards is absolutely right to point this out.

Let's see. Clinton doesn't know that her campaign staff is planting questions. She didn't know that her surrogates were making the "they were being mean to me because I'm a girl" argument. She doesn't seem to know a lot about what the people who actually work for her do.

That's a bad way to run a campaign and a worse way to run a country.