<p>Give her about 14 months.</p>
<p>
Nope. Different pig. Mine’s the smart one. And my pig roots around on everybody, not just starlets. ;)</p>
<p>ah, is barrons admitting the dems will win?</p>
<p>I’m a realist first. Unless Iraq turns around so much that they start sending us oil and get the price of gas below $2 I don’t see much chance this election. Every dog has its day and the republicans have split into factions. A few years of Hill and the R’s will re-unite with some better ideas. If not they will keep losing until the D’s overplay their hand by raising taxes just too much.</p>
<p>I’m guessing this has to be the first time in the history of the United States that a campaign advance man suggested someone in the crowd ask about “xyz”. NOT!</p>
<p>I suggest that epistrophy read a few campaign books written about every Presidential campaign since “The Making of the President” about the 1960 campaign.</p>
<p>This wasn’t like planting a question such as, “Do you think Obama has stopped beating his wife?” It was getting a student to ask about global warming during the week when all the campaign events were centered around a major speech on energy policy. It is quite likely the campaign was trying to get footage for a global warming riff in a TV commercial and needed someone to ask the question.</p>
<p>But, then again, I guess some would be shocked to learn that the American flag or slogan banners behind the candidates in every photo just happens to be there by accident!</p>
<p>Sheesh.</p>
<p>PS:</p>
<p>Tale a look at this TV ad. I was at the event. All the “homemade signs” the video zooms in on (END THIS WAR, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, and CHANGE TO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY) were handed out by the advance people and then filmed panning and zooming every which way by the video crew for a half hour before the speeches started. No top shelf campaign is going to leave it up to chance that people just happen to bring along “homemade” signs to match the script of the next TV ad in the production queue:</p>
<p>[HillaryClinton.com</a> - Video](<a href=“http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/52.aspx]HillaryClinton.com”>http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/52.aspx)</p>
<p>BTW: don’t get me started about Iowa’s role in American politics. 98% lily white. The only state other than Mississippi to never elect a woman to any major office (governor, Congress, Senate). The absolute dumbest caucus system ever divised by man that requires spending so much for each of the 5% of the registered voters who show up that it would be cheaper for the campaigns to just buy them all new tractors. Yet this little podunk backwater has the power to blackmail the Democratic candidates into boycotting the 27 electoral college votes in the critical swing state of Florida. Something is wrong with this picture. </p>
<p>In 2012, the Democrats should give Iowa a prime spot on the July primary calendar, right before the convention.</p>
<p>i-dad:</p>
<p>Don’t forget the role that Iowa has on farm policy, with all of the candidates groveling to massive subsidies to the meg-sized agro-businesses – and, not to mention enviro-gas policy, with Archer Daniels Midland.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, idad, I never said that I was “shocked” by the practice of planting questions. What did surprise me, though - as the title of this thread suggests - is that a campaign machine as sophisticated as Clinton’s would think that they could get away with this sort of thing on a college campus as savvy as Grinnell’s. </p>
<p>(I realize that Grinnell ain’t exactly Swarthmore - where I’m sure no political campaign would ever try to get away with this sort of stunt, not with young people who [as they would surely know] are receiving the very finest undergraduate education that can be found anywhere in the Milky Way - but, hey, what you can you expect from a “little podunk backwater”?)</p>
<p>This sounds to me like the cleanest “dirty trick” I ever did hear.</p>
<p>Asking a cute, winking undergrad to ask about something that genuinely concerns most young people in the country while the cameras are rolling…not terrible, in my book, compared to Rove, Valerie Plane, etc. when careers were ruined. Time and monetary resources to develop an intelligence agent were wasted. Republican dirty tricks like wrecking Valerie Plane to punish her husband for disagreeing over Iraq…that disregard for honesty concerns me more than planting a softball question at a public forum which actually is a valid question. </p>
<p>I would rather it not have happened, because clearly H.Clinton can handle “tough.” So it made her look weak, but just for a moment.</p>
<p>Suddenly this week all the talk is about if she will answer questions clearly and take tough treatment. Two weeks ago, the problem was she was too tough and polarizing.
Pity her; one hat is not enough, two hats are too many. </p>
<p>I’m looking at her policies for the country and her demonstrated experience to decide if she’s my leader. So far, yes. I heard her once in upstate NY discuss education policy (which I know something about). She could juggle 24 different trends and approaches, and more importantly could separate out what was trendy vs. useful in the classroom practice. She must have some powerful intellect and advisors. It’s easy to pick one aspect of somethign complicated (like education) and rant. That’s uni-dimensional. By contrast, she was multi-dimensional: able to analyze, make value judgments, and had some wisdom there. I assume she’s as good on other issues I know less about, such as economics and defense, but could size her up in an area I know about. She was extremely impressive on her ability to analyze the issues. Wonky, maybe, but the abiliity to sift through many facts and decide what matters is essential today. She is conversant with 3 branches of government, as a lawyer, First Lady, and Senator. Head and shoulders above others in terms of experience/exposure. </p>
<p>Oh and you should hear my New Hampshire relatives on the Iowa caucus. To them it’s an illegitimate child, a faux-primary, a pitiful distraction to where REAL presidential futures are made…New Hampshire!! Actually, NH primary results are good predictors, historically. Using the Iowa caucus is one strategy that some candidates use, not others.</p>
<p>i</p>
<p>Looks like most questions were from plants. Cheat here and she will cheat in other places.</p>
<p>[Breitbart.tv</a> » ‘I Wasn’t the Only One’: Student Describes How Clinton Campaign Planted Questions](<a href=“http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=7989]Breitbart.tv”>http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=7989)</p>
<p>. . . must have something to do with going to school - and actually learning to think things through for herself - out there in that “podunk backwater.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Student</a> describes how she became a Clinton plant - CNN.com](<a href=“Student describes how she became a Clinton plant - CNN.com”>Student describes how she became a Clinton plant - CNN.com)</p>
<p>Oh, great. We get another 12 months of *<strong><em>y nitpicking like this. Am I the only one here who thinks that the lovely young college student’s 15 minutes of fame are the result of lazy “gotcha” media outlets eager to talk about anything other than actual policy issues? This has all the earmarks of the “Gore claims he invented the internet” kind of gossipy, *</em></strong>*y backstabbing that absolutely turns my stomach. Epistrophy: I had a lot of respect for you from your posts in other areas. What makes you want to be a participant in the process of dumbing down the quality of policy discussion in America? What next? A scandal over whether a politician’s answer to “Boxers or briefs” was “scripted?”</p>
<p>I don’t even like HC and I’m ****ed off at this. Can’t even smart people like Epistrophy realize that “gotcha” slime is a bad thing?</p>
<p>[Three sets of asterisks. I must really be mad about this… Let me calm down and state my position calmly: There was absolutely nothing wrong with a campaign staffer giving a willing volunteer a suggested on-topic question. Half of the questions at these affairs are long-winded, off-topic and inarticulate. Getting a succinct, on topic query is a benefit to all concerned. It’s not like the question was planted at an opponent’s event to embarrass him/her. Hyping this as a “scandal” is ********. Oops - more asterisks.]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hey, I for one am really looking forward to this - though it may, I realize, put Hillary in a rather awkward position . . . .</p>
<p>…and while I’m on a roll, regarding how Grinnell students “learn to think things through for themselves.” There were two appropriate responses for the student to choose between when the staffer suggested she ask about global warming: </p>
<ol>
<li> “Hmm, that’s a good question. I think I will ask that and see what she has to say.”</li>
<li> “No, thank you. I want to ask my own question.”</li>
</ol>
<p>You will note that conspicuously missing from the list is:</p>
<ol>
<li> Ask the proffered question then run to my nearest media outlet claiming to be some kind of a whistleblower. “Ooh! Ooh! And I think the other guy was fed his question, too! Wait, don’t go away! I might come up with another scandal. Uuhh - I think the other, other person must have been fed her question, too. I mean, they only called on four of us! We must all be plants! Wait - don’t go away! I want more attention!!!”</li>
</ol>
<p>Well, Kluge, after dressing me down, as it were, for “being a participant in the process of dumbing down the quality of policy discussion in America,” it’s nice to see that, by contrast, you’ve taken the high road, elevating the level of political discourse by trashing - with virtually no grounds at all other than those provided by your own fertile imagination - a 19-year-old college sophomore.</p>
<p>but somehow its okay for Bush to have WHOLE audiences of hand picked people who ask softball questions</p>
<p>got it</p>
<p>I have volunteered for campaigns, and have been asked to bring up a topic if no one else does…no harm done</p>
<p>and sometimes, it helps if someone changes the direction of questions so that the flow doesn’t get stuck in minutia, which often happens</p>
<p>kluge:</p>
<p>Having trouble seeing your big concern here. Unlike ‘boxes and briefs’, which has zero impact on an election, this simple faux paus plays into the ability of Hilary’s opponents to define her persona rather than ther way around. The talking heads that I saw after the Drexel debate all said that H was evasive on nearly every hot policy question. H also has a reputation, deserved or not, as a controlling-type person. While probably true for nearly every politician, it contrasts with Edwards, who is trying to appear as a populist.</p>
<p>Soooooo, 1) when a campaign rep tries to control the questions asked, and 2) then tries to ensure that such questions are softballs in candidate’s sweet spot, and 3) the candidate “just happens” to call on that student, it sure makes it quite easy for the Edwards and Obama teams to continue to point out possible ‘flaws’ in her public character, at least to make their guy look better. </p>
<p>Fair or not, that’s the game of politics.</p>
<p>and still when Bush does it, its okay dokey</p>
<p>Bluebayou, I’m an Edwards fan myself. But making this BS out to have any significance at all - either as evidence of HC’s “character” or anything else, just shows how intellectually bankrupt the process of evaluating politicians has become in this country. I would expect campaign staffers to do the kind of thing described. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. It’s a far cry from the Potemkin Village farces Bush’s people have engaged in, as CGM points out, but even those excesses are insignificant.</p>
<p>Why is this a story? Really - why? I get that “it’s the game of politics” but do we have to indulge the morons at their game? Isn’t that just encouraging them to ignore substance for the best spun BS?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with what could be expected of campaign staffers (see in this regard, if interested, the quotation from Poet Laureate Charles Simic that I cited earlier re what can generally be expected of politicos), but disagree with the proposition that there’s “absolutely nothing wrong with it.” </p>
<p>Is this practice commonplace? No doubt. But is it right to make the public think that a spontaneous and unrehearsed give-and-take on the issues is taking place when, in fact, what is actually taking place is a mere charade, a bit of scripted play-acting? In my view, no.</p>