Hillary Clinton’s reputation for calculated political orchestration has been enhanced after a member of her staff was caught out in the crucial primary battleground of Iowa planting a tame question in the audience.
The Clinton campaign operation in Iowa was forced to admit that it had set up the question on climate change at a town hall rally in Newton last Tuesday. The meeting had been an important set-piece for Clinton, with several members of the national media present.
The matter was reported Friday by the AP. The LA Times tried to bat the subject back a bit, in an effort that strikes me as more amusing than effective.
Separately, I just want to note how cute those Brits are: “tame question” … one almost expects the reporter to call Bill “jolly old Will,” or something, a bit farther down. Ah, the Old Country.
Any campaign organization that isn’t trying to get questions asked is not working on all cylinders. Press aides spend hours and hours talking with reporters and commentators trying to plant the right questions…seeding “town meeting” forums and house parties and public call-ins are all part of every campaigns play book….from Deval to Obama to Edwards to McCain and Mitt and ALL the rest…it is a fair tactic…listen to talk radio when they have a politician as guest, how many calls do you think aren’t made from supporters or employees of the guest?…Even C-Span’s news call-ins are mostly set-ups: you can actually figure out that they are READING you their comment.
<
p>
My concern over the non-issue nitpicking that Democrats love will escalate as it has for the past election cycles and result in a GOP rescusitation. Democrats in their desperation to win the nomination, attack each other with razor blades…small cuts to draw blood…and then when we get our nominee bleeding profusely from 1,000 small cuts, we shove them out the door to face the Republican nominee…this has not been a path to victory in the past, what makes us think it will be this time around?
<
p>
As the LA Times points out, it’s become standard practice. Hillary just got caught out, this time:
<
p>
http://www.latimes.c…
<
p>
Although other campaigns are righteously denying it, virtually every professional presidential campaign plants questions. It’s a routine part of preparation for the advance people staging every event.
<
p>
Not every question is planted, as you can tell from the weird ones that sometimes pop up. Most are arranged with more sophistication than grabbing a passing college student. They’re done in advance with known local supporters who can be trusted and, frankly, are flattered by their moment in the limelight addressing the possible next president in front of friends. They want the world to think it’s their own question.
<
p>
A twist on this strategy is for a candidate’s team to smuggle one of its supporters into an opponent’s event to ask an embarrassing question while the cameras roll.
<
p>
The article also points out Hillary didn’t know which person would be asking the question, just that the question would probably be asked.
<
p>
Don’t forget that the Bush campaign was notorious for this kind of machination. My favorite is still giving signs in Spanish to the Minnesota College Republicans:
<
p>
http://findarticles….
<
p>
“We’re with the Minnesota College Republicans,” said John Thompson, a tall, blond kid holding a sign that read “Viva el Texano.” Melissa Jackson, a sophomore at St. Olaf, was waving a sign that said “Juntos Si Se Puede.” “I don’t have a clue what it means,” she admitted. The fifty Minnesotans were given the signs by event organizers, Thompson and Jackson explained. Parker Hamilton, executive director of the National College Republicans and also a blond Nordic type, was holding a “Latinos for Bush” sign. “We wanted to have a lot of young people here to show how much we support Bush,” she said.
Groups like National Rifle Assn and Natioanl Education Assn pay people to show up at events and asked carefully framed “questions.”
<
p>
Three goals. Not just influence candidate, and national press, but also works as a “push poll” — where the question wording itself influences voters at the event.
Zabt Hillary Camaign Fun
<
p>
Does this mean she just might not be the breath of frsh air the media tells us she will be?
<
p>
Bring On The PSecial inestigations
…exactly what?
<
p>
If the Clinton campaign had filibustered the interview with planted questions, that would be one thing. But, if the campaign had planted a question regarding an issue that Hillary wanted to address, but was not sure would be addressed, what seriously is the problem?
…that the cauterwailing media is going to inflate any misstep by Hillary’s campaign (what tip did she leave? How much? To whom? What percentage? Which staff member did it?) because they’re bored with the fact that she’s running away with this thing. Meanwhile, we’ll steadfastly ignore a) the issues and b) her rivals’ mistakes. You have Obama suddenly walking the Republican line on Social Security, but I’m supposed to care about a planted question.
<
p>
I fully expect the media to build up Obama and Edwards as much as they can over the next few weeks. Then she’ll win anyway, and we’ll see all sorts of books about “what happened” on those campaigns on shelves next year.
…a left of center UK publication, as I’m sure you know. Apparently, they had space they had to fill between the ads.
…merely reporting on this story that has been whipped up in the American media.
It was reported that her campaign had left a US$100 tip on a US$157 (or so) bill with the manager. It strikes me that, if the manager (who frankly should not benefit from a tip) refused to share the tip with the employees, that is an internal issue within the company.
<
p>
As was reported on Digby’s web site, the waitress could not understand what the hullabaloo was regarding the incident.
The true significance of the incident is that it strikes right to the heart of her greatest weakness… She is running an overly scripted and seemingly insincere campaign. Not sure if readers here are readers of BelowBoston.com. They have been traveling to NH regualarly to cover (video) all of the candidates. The lack of question/answer opportunities at Clinton events is glaring. It has been noticed by many NH voters, and I’m going to assume that they began feeling that same heat in Iowa. So it goes, she again begins to take questions, and it turns out they are actively recruiting and planting questions. THIS WAS NOT A SUPPORTER THROWING A SOFTBALL QUESTION TO THEIR CANDIDATE, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A SPECIFIC POLICY TO BE HIGHLIGHTED. This was a young college kid, recruited, to ask a question that probably had a scripted response.
<
p>
That is a HUGE difference. Also, it occurs on the heels of another incident when Clinton essentially accused a questioner of BEING a plant, when he questioned her vote on Kyl-Liberman.
<
p>
These incidents, along with MANY others, do NOT signify a campaign that is ready for the General.
<
p>
The Primary season serves 2 fundamental purposes…
<
p>
1. Learn about the candidates policy positions/priorities, values and background.
<
p>
2. Demonstrate that they are prepared to go the distance.
<
p>
The Hillary campaign appears to have some difficulty with the later, and it is becoming glaring.
You are saying that her biggest problem is how scripted and “insincere” her campaign is? That describes any of the major presidential campaigns.
<
p>
Heck, the big problem for me is that she maintains that her vote on the AUMF was the right vote. That’s what’s keeping me out of her corner. If that’s the biggest thing Obama’s people have to throw at her, they may as well pack it up.
Partially imposed by her security, to be fair, but as I’ve been following the campaign I’ve noted more than a few instances of Hillary not being available to answer questions from reporters and freezing out/laughing off questions she apparently considers too silly/impertinent/whatever to answer.
<
p>
This strikes me very, very badly. Of course, to some degree all campaigns are scripted. But there has to be a sense – for me anyway – that the candidate can roll with the punches. I don’t see that quality in HRC – instead I perceive a kind of brittleness that unnerves me.
<
p>
This incident plays right into that perception. And reminds me uncomfortably of Bush’s 2004 campaign – banish everyone who doesn’t agree with you and refuse to answer the difficult questions.
<
p>
She’s gone from consideration for me. If – god forbid – she’s the democratic nominee I will vote for her, but she will not get my vote in the primary. Not that it will matter. Just sayin’.
The original post and my comment were related to campaigning tactics. I do believe some of the “incidents” related to her campaign should be seriously considered by Primary voters. The eventual nominee, if they intend to win the General, cannot be making these types of mistakes.
IMHO, the effectiveness of a campaign organization is an extremely important variable, that should not be overlooked.
she hasn’t run an effective campaign? Have to completely disagree. Well, look, some overzealous staffer suggested the wrong kid ask about her energy plan(which is quite good). So what. It happens. The reason this is even an issue is that Hillary’s opponents are trying to paint her as a calculating bitch. Every campaign plants a couple of questions here and there to get their message out, it’s hardly Bush pre-screening his audience and having them planted to praise him.
anyway suggesting that this rises to the level of Bush’s pre-screen audiences. That we CAN agree on. Also, I would never characterize her in the negative terms you state other campaigns are attempting to do.
<
p>
I just think it is concerning because it resonates with the experience many have noticed at events in NH. Either “no questions” or now canned questions. It falls on the heels of her implying, directly to the questioner, that he may be a plant at a recent event in Iowa.
<
p>
It is the cummulative effect of campaign slip ups, that are making the claims of being the candidate to stand-up to the “right wing” machine, ring hollow to me.
For example, I read this morning that 2 of her top… TOP advisers foolishly (like pouting children) trashed the potential youth vote at the Jefferson Jackson dinner in Iowa. [http://www.politico….]
<
p>
These things ARE important. I’m going to assume that the college-aged Obama supporters are going to be blogging/linking this to all of their friends today. Very important… they showed up for the dinner, they are motivated for the caucus.
<
p>
Now imagine that something similar happens in the General, if she is to become the nominee. If you look at the current polls, there is NO room for error, if she is the candidate against the front-runner Rudy G.
<
p>
“If” she was to become the nominee… these types of things, cummulatively, could literally make the difference. I am a Dem. who more than anything believes if we are going to get this country headed back in the direction it should be going… we need to regain the WH. That is why slip ups, repeated and compounded, are seriously concerning.
but that is the image of her her competitors are trying to craft. I go to alot of the younger blogs, and a couple of off hand comments by her staff does not have legs. I agree we need a nom who will run an effective campaign. I think we’ll get that.
Either “no questions” or now canned questions.
<
p>
Do you know how to use the singular in the american language? There is no evidence that there were canned questions. There is only evidence of a single question.
As we see here, the typical “other people do this so its all right for Shrillary to do it” spin. The old two wrongs make a right logic. What crap.
It’s amazing how the media keeps letting this woman get away with her refusal to answer direct questions.
I believe that the real killer for her was her dance on Russert’s question as to whether or not, as New York Senator, she supported Spitzer’s incredibly unpopular program to give Drivers licenses to Illegal aliens. Someone finally threw her a fast ball and she got smoked. It was hilarious to watch her dance around that one with more steps than Fred Astaire.
Then she really buried herself with a subsequent press release that said she did support Spitzer and did support DLs for Illegals. Endorsement
<
p>
Not real bright while the resounding majority of Americans do not want DLs for illegals. Here are the numbers from New Yorkers alone Illegal license poll
So now she wants to give them DLs in addition to $5k for each anchor baby, free health care and tuition. She’s going to get creamed in the general elction.
<
p>
Get ready for the Republicans to remind America of her position on this DL thing ( as well as her other hair brained ideas)on a daily basis for the next year. The real fun will start when she is forced to go one on one with the GOP nominee. It will be like the scene from OZ when the bucket of water gets thrown on the witch and she melts.Should be good for some nice laughs.
Shrillary is unelectable. The DNC already knows this.
now is that Spitzer has backed down ( probably under pressure from the Clinton machine). Meanwhile, Billary after announcing her total support for the now defunct Spitzer plan to give Dls to illegal aliens , now announces that “As President, I will not support DLs for undocumented people (illegal aliens)” 4 th flip flop.. How arrogant and stupid can this woman be? As President ( God forbid) she would have absolutely NO Authority or power to say anything about DLs for illegals as that is a totally STATE power. Wonder when these politically correct politicians are going to start calling “undocumented people ” what they really are?… friggin ILLEGAL ALIENS
This woman is clueless and unelectable.