Hillary has a green thumb?

[Gan]

GRINNELL, Iowa (CNN) -- The college student who says she was told what question to ask at one of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign events said Monday that "voters have the right to know what happened" and she wasn't the only one who was planted.

In an exclusive taped interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said that giving anyone specific questions to ask is "dishonest," and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.

Gallo-Chasanoff, whose story was first reported in the campus newspaper, said what happened was really pretty simple: She says a senior Clinton staffer asked if she'd like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.

"I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'" Gallo-Chasanoff said.

"'I don't think that's a good idea," the staffer said, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, "because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans."
He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.

"The top one was planned specifically for a college student," she added. " It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question."

Topping that sheet of paper was the following: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?"

And while she said she would have rather used her own question, Gallo-Chasanoff said she generally didn't have a problem asking the campaign's because she "likes to be agreeable," adding that since she told the staffer she'd ask their pre-typed question she "didn't want to go back on [her] word."

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee has said in a statement responding to the initial campus article that the senator "did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event."

Gallo-Chasanoff wasn't so sure.

"I don't know whether Hillary knew what my question was going to be, but it seemed like she knew to call on me because there were so many people, and ... I was the only college student in that area," she said.

In a statement, the campaign also added, "On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum. ... This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again."

Gallo-Chasanoff may have some doubts about that one as well.

"After the event," she said, "I heard another man ... talking about the question he asked, and he said that the campaign had asked him to ask that question."

The man she references prefaced his question by saying that it probably didn't have anything to do with energy, and then posed the following: "I wonder what you propose to do to create jobs for the middle-class person, such as here in Newton where we lost Maytag."

A Maytag factory in Newton recently closed, forcing hundreds of people out of their jobs.

During the course of the late-night interview on Grinnell's campus, Gallo-Chasanoff also told CNN that the day before the school's newspaper, Scarlet and Black, printed the story, she wanted the reporter to inform the campaign out of courtesy to let them know it would be published.

She said the "head of publicity for the campaign," a man whose name she could not recall, had no factual disputes with the story. But, she added, a Clinton intern spoke to her to say the campaign requests she "not talk about" the story to any more media outlets and that if she did she should inform a staffer.

"I'm not under any real obligation to do that, and I haven't talked to [the campaign] anymore," Gallo-Chasanoff said, adding that she also doesn't plan to.

"If what I do is come and just be totally truthful, then that's all anyone can ask of me, and that's all I can ask of myself. So I'll feel good with what I've done. I'll feel like I've done the right thing."

Asked if this experience makes her less likely to support Clinton's presidential bid, Gallo-Chasanoff, an undecided voter, said, "I think she has a lot to offer, but I -- this experience makes me look at her campaign a little bit differently."

"The question and answer sessions -- especially in Iowa -- are really important. That's where the voters get to ... have like a real genuine conversation with this politician who could be representing them."

While she acknowledged "it's possible that all campaigns do these kind of tactics," she said it still doesn't make it right.

"Personally I want to know that I have someone who's honest representing me."

more...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html

[Latrinsorm]

This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.a) rofl. b) Notice that "repeated again" implies it's happened twice already. Mistake or admission?

Great scouting on the Clinton campaign's part, though. Who would have thought a young college kid would stand up for idealistic values? Shocker.

[DeV]

"Personally I want to know that I have someone who's honest representing me."


Personally, I want to know what planet she's living on.

[Kranar]

Stuff like this really angers me.

[Gan]

Stuff like this really angers me.

Sorry, I couldnt resist.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ATA/21501BP~Marvin-The-Martian-Posters.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

Personally, I want to know what planet she's living on.You don't want someone honest representing you?

[oldanforgotten]

As much as I don't like the uber conservative spin that'll inevitably be put on this, at the same time, this is a serious issue at hand, and yet another attack on Hilary's already nonexistant credibility.

And this is where the Hilary supporters will:
a) Blankly claim that everyone else does it also (which I know is not true, at least not for regular old rallies for Obama, Romney, or Gore)
b) Post a link of some random Republican/Rival Democrat having done something bad and use it as a basis of argument against the point at hand.
c) Selectively ignore the mounting credibility problems Hilary has because "she's a woman", or "she's for change".
________
MALE ADVICE FORUMS (http://www.love-help.org/male-advice/)

[Gan]

This bothers me on several levels.

First is the idea that Hillary's response was really not an admission of guilt and yet not an outright denial. It was politically ambiguous. Does she think that the average voter is stupid enough to buy that? (Reminds me of Bill's dodging in the televised interview about the Lewenski affair - "Define sex...") She just appears to be using a play from her husband's playbook.

Another thing that bothers me is that the campaign has made no secret in saying that the people that approached the 'plants' were "interns". Like thats supposed to lend a degree of buffer between a regular campaign official (decision maker) and those who actually do the groundwork in the campaign. Or am I reading it wrong. To me, it sounds as if the campaign is lending an air of deniability by inferring it was an overzealous intern who attempted to plant the questions in hopes of advancing their status within the campaign.

And the fact that Hillary's so unsure of the questions she'll field in an honest forum that she has to attempt to manipulate the system in order to 'appear' as a viable candidate. Sad, very sad.

Hillary took this torpedo on the bow and I see her ship taking on more water. This is just what the Obama campaign needed. And more of what America needs to see with regards to what kind of person Hillary really is (behind the political mask).

Way to go Hillary!

:clap:

[DeV]

You don't want someone honest representing you?
I'd like that more than anything. I also believe that if our politicians were blatantly honest, and acted accordingly, they would not enjoy a successful or long-term career in politics.

The college student is on the right path however and I'm glad she had the courage and foresight to bring this to light, in case you were wondering or happened to follow-up my reply with another asinine question. Honesty in politicians is not enough by itself; it begins with the electorate and this type of accountability is a pleasant change.

I believe that all politicians are responsible for the actions of their campaign workers while they are actively campaigning on their bahalf. From planting reporters to planting questions to requiring loyalty oaths; it's all notoriously cowardly and unethical to boot. It's always bothered me and now is no different.

[CrystalTears]

"I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'" Gallo-Chasanoff said.

"'I don't think that's a good idea," the staffer said, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, "because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans.":wtf: Shouldn't she?

[Tsa`ah]

As much as I don't like the uber conservative spin that'll inevitably be put on this, at the same time, this is a serious issue at hand, and yet another attack on Hilary's already nonexistant credibility.

This story comes with no spin required. Sure, conservatives will jump all over it, but they're not ... or should not touch it ... unless Hillary actually gains the nomination.

The other democratic candidates need to hammer this point, as well as about four others, home with their every third breath.

I wouldn't think it possible, but at this point Clinton is representative of a GOP win for the Oval Office. She's already alienating her male vote large scale. She burned her ability to schmooze the Jew vote before her hubby left office, and slowly but surely she's shutting the doors on so many potential voting demographics to the point where she'll be left with the "We have vaginas" vote.

I'm not a big believer in polls in the real elections, but when it comes to ballot races they hold some merit. Hillary is showing signs of a sinking ship. If she actually gains the bid it will be because Obama didn't show enough teeth.

The GOP isn't stupid. They'll let the Dems tear Clinton up and they'll keep their focus on tearing up Obama.

[Clove]

You don't want someone honest representing you?

About as much as I want world peace, delicious, glutton-free, vegan, organic, whole-grain lasagna, and meaningless sex with a supermodel. DeV was mocking probability not desireability.

[TheEschaton]

I would desire meaningful sex.......with a supermodel. But other than that, QFT.

-TheE-

[Clove]

I would desire meaningful sex.......with a supermodel. But other than that, QFT.

-TheE-

It's always meaningful for me when it's a supermodel.

[Daniel]

Is that possible?

[oldanforgotten]

I don?t think she?s showing any signs yet of a sinking ship. She is the ultimate politician. She?s the political equivalent of a street hustler, preparing for each individual crowd what would best get them to vote for her, regardless of what she said the night before to a different crowd, basically pandering for votes. I?ve had a very interesting look at all of the candidates and many of their personalities for this election, moreso than normal because part of our risk assessments involve analyzing political candidates, their stances, their leadership abilities, and as such, we do attend the periodic rally, get information about them, their lifestyles, much from former co-workers/employees, etc.

It?s interesting how some of the character traits play out, and what some of the assessments have been (while sometimes I wish I were involved more with this process, unfortunately I?m not, but the reading is entertaining nonetheless. Yes, these comments have spin, and rather than edit and leave the spin out, I?m simply removing anything financially referenced, and sticking to analysis of character.) So yes, all of the comments may be construed as having spin (occasionally, the spin of someone who either liked or didnt like the candidate), so take it as you may.

Romney:
1) Wants to run everything as a business, at times cutting things perceived as waste that aren?t always so.
2) Incredibly organized in both thoughts and defense of his views.
3) Along with Giuliani, the character that cares the least about social issues such as Abortion, Gay Marriage. Couldn?t care less what the outcomes were, although he has a more middle of the road set of beliefs than some conservatives would like.
4) Excels more than any other candidate with surrounding himself with views of all opinions, including those that contrast his own for the purpose of decision making.
5) Keeps an ideal for efficiency above all else. Uses the most efficient and generally cost effective business model of all candidates for getting things done.
6) Is at times afraid to say things that people would not like. Not a timid personality, but not strong at telling people bad news.
7) Does not have an engaging personality, not the most charismatic of leaders.
8) Is keenly aware of his surroundings and campaign. Knows what is going on at all times. Bright individual.

Obama
1) Is the most enthusiastic and forthcoming of all the candidates.
2) Believes in Integrity and a willingness to care as primary means of attracting voters and people to his cause.
3) Is at times both brutally honest and engaging. A very strong public speaker who is well aware of his own stances as well as others on all issues.
4) Along with Romney, the brightest intellectually of the candidates. Does not rely on others to tell him what to do, but rather uses his inner circle to discuss strategies.
5) Willingness to ad-lib occasionally leads to repetitive answers.
6) Believes it to be a strength that he is willing to admit his own mistakes. Believes it to be a weakness of others that they will not.
7) Surrounds himself with more white people, specifically white males, than would otherwise have been expected.
8) Has a strong knowledge of all issues, and has very strong beliefs that some feel are too liberal for moderates, but stands by his guns. Not pandering for votes.
9) Has a strong dislike for Hilary. While he values party and general party affiliations, there may be truth to the belief that he would rather have an independent or Republican president instead of Hilary, although he would never publicly state it.
10) Does not separate himself from his family when it comes to politics. His wife is generally as aware as he is of what his plans and courses of action are.

Hilary:
1) Is a much better public speaker than people give her credit for. Engaging personality.
2) Willingly keeps ties with as many people as she can, focusing on where the money is. Very strong ability to win support from the wealthy and powerful.
3) Intensely prepared. Sometimes too prepared. Tries to tailor every speech and every answer to every question to the audience to gain maximum effect.
4) Has little to no awareness of her campaign management nor what methodologies it employs to do their work.
5) Is not a decision maker. Relies on surrounding herself with the group she believes makes her most electable to generate decision making processes.
6) Sometimes tries too hard to be likable. Results in appearance of dishonesty. Self image is a cornerstone of the campaign.
7) Has the best understanding of politics and the law of any candidate.
8) Is, without a doubt, the most ambitious of any candidate. At times, seems resentful of her husband?s success in politics.
9) Is a very thoughtful individual outside the political arena. Well versed on most topics.

Giuliani
1) Enjoys the image of being a pit-bull. Has very strong leadership skills, and has the general admiration of everyone who?s ever worked for him, even if they didn?t like him personally.
2) Is generally very calm and attentive under pressure, but does not waver ever.
3) Surrounds himself with strong business decision makers, not other politicians. A very hard headed group, and rarely, if ever, allows decision making process to involve others. Inner circle is comprised of more left than right.
4) Cares as little as a presidential candidate could legally get away with about image or public opinion.
5) Tries to run the issues and his surroundings as a business. Often uses the motto that everyone else should act like it?s a business, and he?ll take care of the politics.
6) Is keenly aware of his surroundings and his campaign. More than willing to go through the mud to take someone else with him. Strategically closer to Hilary than Romney.
7) Is willing to push and promote an issue he does not believe in, but does not do it specifically for votes. All decisions are made within his inner circle, and at times, even ones he is in disagreement with will be made.
8) Believes that the greater good is more important than the individual.
________
Honda cl200 specifications (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_CL200)

[Gan]

Is that possible?

:rofl:

[Seran]

Giuliani
1) Enjoys the image of being a pit-bull. Has very strong leadership skills, and has the general admiration of everyone who’s ever worked for him, even if they didn’t like him personally.
2) Is generally very calm and attentive under pressure, but does not waver ever.
3) Surrounds himself with strong business decision makers, not other politicians. A very hard headed group, and rarely, if ever, allows decision making process to involve others. Inner circle is comprised of more left than right.
4) Cares as little as a presidential candidate could legally get away with about image or public opinion.
5) Tries to run the issues and his surroundings as a business. Often uses the motto that everyone else should act like it’s a business, and he’ll take care of the politics.
6) Is keenly aware of his surroundings and his campaign. More than willing to go through the mud to take someone else with him. Strategically closer to Hilary than Romney.
7) Is willing to push and promote an issue he does not believe in, but does not do it specifically for votes. All decisions are made within his inner circle, and at times, even ones he is in disagreement with will be made.
8) Believes that the greater good is more important than the individual.

9) Has no qualms about hiring pedophiles, thieves, or anyone and everyone with mob connections.

[Parkbandit]

9) Has no qualms about hiring pedophiles, thieves, or anyone and everyone with mob connections.


You're an idiot.

[Seran]

And this is where the Hilary supporters will:
a) Blankly claim that everyone else does it also (which I know is not true, at least not for regular old rallies for Obama, Romney, or Gore)
b) Post a link of some random Republican/Rival Democrat having done something bad and use it as a basis of argument against the point at hand.
c) Selectively ignore the mounting credibility problems Hilary has because "she's a woman", or "she's for change".


In other words, don't bother trying bringing up other instances it's much worse this time. Or in Conservative-speak 'I dun care 'bout no other politikers, it's worser now!'

[Gan]

I was wondering when the Hillary fan would show up. Better late than never eh Seran?

:lol:

[Warriorbird]

I'm not sure she's stoppable.

:(

[Seran]

I was wondering when the Hillary fan would show up. Better late than never eh Seran?


Nope, still voting McCain.

Someone had to point out the hipocracy though, these boards are ripe with it.

[oldanforgotten]

Nope, still voting McCain.

Someone had to point out the hipocracy though, these boards are ripe with it.

There is no hypocrisy to it. Hilary is a polarizing candidate because she has so many black marks on her record. Her supporters randomly point out other things other candidates have done as though the 1 or 2 things they've done is as bad as the 40 things Hilary has done. She's dishonest. She can't answer honest questions.

And considering you're supporting someone who thinks she is one of the most corrupt people in the Senate, and who spearheaded the campaign contribution issue that he is dead set against, I strongly question the McCain BS.
________
Llama (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Land_Rover_Llama)

[Seran]

And considering you're supporting someone who thinks she is one of the most corrupt people in the Senate, and who spearheaded the campaign contribution issue that he is dead set against, I strongly question the McCain BS.

Are you seriously that retarded?

You don't have to support an object of ridicule to point out just how ironic it is that people are thrashing a candidate when their own candidates bear the same skeletons.

[oldanforgotten]

Are you seriously that retarded?

You don't have to support an object of ridicule to point out just how ironic it is that people are thrashing a candidate when their own candidates bear the same skeletons.

And what big skeletons does Obama or Romney have that we dont already know about?
________
Fj1200 (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_FJ1200)

[Warriorbird]

Obama has a critical lack of balls. Romney is the Republican Kerry.

[Tsa`ah]

Obama has a critical lack of balls.

I'd agree to an extent ... but not necessarily on the terminology. He's been unreactive to the crap thrown his way.

Balls however, I think we'll see how ballsey he is now that Clinton is teetering. It may well be a calculated strategy.

[Gan]

Balls however, I think we'll see how ballsey he is now that Clinton is teetering. It may well be a calculated strategy.

I agree.

[Sean of the Thread]

Is this a bad thread to make a pink cigar comment?

[oldanforgotten]

I'd agree to an extent ... but not necessarily on the terminology. He's been unreactive to the crap thrown his way.

Balls however, I think we'll see how ballsey he is now that Clinton is teetering. It may well be a calculated strategy.

While his speeches themselves have not been ballsey in the sense that he does not attack images of his opponents rather than voting record, and that he has basically allowed the Clinton camp to do the usual Clinton tactics (trying to spread that he is a muslim, went to school in a terrorist training camp, his name is really Osama), I?d say his way of handling everything, much like Romney, has been rather stand up, and signs of a mature person in general. He is everything that Clinton is not, and if he wasn?t black, this discussion I honestly do not think would exist, because I believe he?d be the front runner.

His speeches have that Reagan like rockstar following, and his tone in general is more inspirational and questioning of how we could do things better than simple image based personal attacks. He is less political and attacking than perhaps he should be, and I?d like to see him take some of the Clinton camp rumor-mongering and lying and stuff it back at her, but at the same time, I can?t question his character or that he is a stand up guy. Simply put, read his book. He?s a guy not afraid to admit his mistakes and how he moved forward from it, he?s not afraid to make mistakes, and he genuinely cares. Racial melodrama aside, he?s had to have a fairly large degree of balls to do what he has already done.

Clinton is everything I hate about politics. Obama is everything we would want in terms of character and enthusiasm. Romney is everything we need to run the place like a business. Giuliani has the pitbull mentality that is needed at times (10% of the time though, not 100%), and Clinton is the American Stalin. She?d drop a bomb on American people if she thought it would get her more votes.
________
CHRYSLER AB PLATFORM (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Chrysler_AB_platform)

[Tsa`ah]

I’d say his way of handling everything, much like Romney, has been rather stand up, and signs of a mature person in general.

Eh, you can't call a guy (Romney) stand up when he's jumped head first into the terrorist slant against Obama.

[Warriorbird]

Obama has no Louis Howe. He has no Karl Rove. He has no Lee Atwater. I think he resists that sort of thing, unfortunately.

[Stanley Burrell]

If Warren Beatty ran (like, after he stopped sleeping and started rapping) I would absolutely vote for Mr. Bullworth.

[Celephais]

:wtf: Shouldn't she?
You asked why she should know what other politians plans were... I actually see this as sort of a good thing. In reality no leader should care what the competitors are doing from a competition standpoint. If you're just positioning your stance based on an opposing strategy for political gain but not to actually support the stance that is bad. Obviously being open minded and building the best stance by looking at all of them is good, but I really don't see a point in scrutinizing how exactly your plan is different, vs just stating what your plan is.

If she were to say "I have the exact same energy plan as Obama" and I happened to like Obama's plan, I wouldn't say Hillary was worse off.

The plant thing kind of sucks though... bad move, you would have to know a plant would talk.

[CrystalTears]

Heh, I was under the impression that politicians went by the motto "know thy enemy" and always try to be one step ahead of them.

From a competitor's standpoint, you would know what your competition is doing and then try doing it better than them.

[oldanforgotten]

You asked why she should know what other politians plans were... I actually see this as sort of a good thing. In reality no leader should care what the competitors are doing from a competition standpoint. If you're just positioning your stance based on an opposing strategy for political gain but not to actually support the stance that is bad. Obviously being open minded and building the best stance by looking at all of them is good, but I really don't see a point in scrutinizing how exactly your plan is different, vs just stating what your plan is.

If she were to say "I have the exact same energy plan as Obama" and I happened to like Obama's plan, I wouldn't say Hillary was worse off.

The plant thing kind of sucks though... bad move, you would have to know a plant would talk.


leaders should have general ideas about what the competition is doing. The whole thing, however stinks of her being coached as to what to say, being given advance question and answers for questions, and in general, she being nothing more than someone's puppet for the rally.
________
Marijuana vaporizers (http://weedvaporizers.org/)

[Warriorbird]

The DLC are all about losing themselves some America.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.plantsforhillary.com/

[Gan]

haha

nice.

[Gan]

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her MySpace page (http://www.myspace.com/maria_luisa_rocks)this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Now, Luisa is getting "swamped" with critical e-mails.
So what happened?

Writes Luisa:


"CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, "you gave our school a bad reputation.' Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That's what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That's politics; that's reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America--and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question."
Rivals to Clinton believe that the debate audience had a pro-Clinton tilt. UNLV was responsible for distributing most of the tickets.


In a separate post, Luisa provides the question she wanted to ask:

Yucca Mountain, NV is the proposed site for the country's nuclear waste repository. Despite scientific evidence that it is a vulnerable site, the federal government continues to push for the plan to move forward. The evidence relied on is unsound and the risks involved in transporting high-level radioactive waste across the country are high. What will you [Sen. Clinton] do to ensure that the best site/s is/are chosen for the storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel?
Sam Feist, the executive producer of the debate, said that the student was asked to choose another question because the candidates had already spent about ten minutes discussing Yucca Mountain.

"When her Yucca mountain question was asked, she was given the opportunity to ask another question, and my understanding is that the [diamond v. pearls] questions was her other question," Feist said. "She probably was disappointed, but we spent a lot of time with a bunch of different candidates on Yucca Mountain, and we were at the end of the debate."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php
Greg Sargent of TPM Election Central has a CNN spoxperson giving (http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/cnn_denies_diamonds_and_pearl_girl_was_forced_to_a sk_question.php)a slightly different story...


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 (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php) 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 (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php) 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.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/cnn_denies_diamonds_and_pearl_girl_was_forced_to_a sk_question.php

__________________________________________________ ____________

So on one hand we have a campaign actually admitting to planting questions for 'students' to ask a candidate in a structured non-debate setting.

And now on the other hand we have a major news network admitting to screening and then pre-selecting questions submitted by the audience before the debate.

This makes me sad that the candidates fear presenting themselves without any buffers between honest legitimate questions about their views policy outlook and politically acceptable answers.

:(

It also demonstrates and possibly validates many biased opinions of CNN. (Clinton News Network, Communist News Network... etc.)

Way to go CNN. :clap:

[Warriorbird]

Stupid. Though... I don't think we have much in the way of unbiased media sources. Division in America is pretty strong.

[Clove]

And it validates that campaign planners and media employees alike believe that the precise presentation of a candidate's image is more important to voters than any fank insights to their policy ideas. We may as well have an anchorman or spokesmodel for President.

[Warriorbird]

We've had that. Most Republicans think he was the greatest President of the 20th century.

[Methais]

Solution: Don't vote.

[Warriorbird]

Solution = http://www.weeklyreader.com/readandwriting/content/binary/stephen%20colbert.jpg

[TheEschaton]

If this is how it is for Hillary now, in the primary, and presumably she wins the nomination - I should probably start packing for France or something, because the attacks are going to be fucking brutal come next summer.

-TheE-

[Gan]

If this is how it is for Hillary now, in the primary, and presumably she wins the nomination - I should probably start packing for France or something, because the attacks are going to be fucking brutal come next summer.

-TheE-

France would suit you. Or Canada even.

[Parkbandit]

France would suit you. Or Canada even.

France is actually realizing how bad socialism is.. so I would probably recommend Russia or even Cuba.

[Warriorbird]

If you want well done socialism the Scandanavian countries are probably your best destination.

Russia's a little too authoritarian for TheE's tastes, I imagine.

[Sean of the Thread]

If you want well done socialism the Scandanavian countries are probably your best destination.



If you enjoy 60% tax rates sure...then again who needs money when you get free aspirin?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If this is how it is for Hillary now, in the primary, and presumably she wins the nomination - I should probably start packing for France or something, because the attacks are going to be fucking brutal come next summer.

-TheE-

Don't you attack people left and right on these boards?

[Warriorbird]

If you enjoy 60% tax rates sure...then again who needs money when you get free aspirin?

And despite all that? They pretty much do okay... that fact goes strongly against Milton Friedman and the Chicago School's ideals more than about anything else. I mean...god...I'd certainly rather be there than France, where they've always sort of pussyfooted around about socialism.

Hot women too.

[Gan]

France is actually realizing how bad socialism is.. so I would probably recommend Russia or even Cuba.

Or Venezuela.

[Sean of the Thread]

And despite all that? They pretty much do okay... that fact goes strongly against Milton Friedman and the Chicago School's ideals more than about anything else. I mean...god...I'd certainly rather be there than France, where they've always sort of pussyfooted around about socialism.

Hot women too.

Actually they're considered to be weak and poor governments. Not sure what you're measuring as "doing well" so I'll leave it at that for now.

[Warriorbird]

Depends on who/how you're considering them. The average citizen there does pretty well...taxes and all.

[Sean of the Thread]

Depends on who/how you're considering them. The average citizen there does pretty well...taxes and all.

Oh not sure about the citizens.. I was speaking about the government. That much isn't in dispute.

I suppose even slaves and prisoners throughout history were "doing well" from some perspective.

[Warriorbird]

They look like they're suffering so.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/56/Playboy_January_1992.jpg/180px-Playboy_January_1992.jpg

[Sean of the Thread]

They're too dumb to know it.

[Gan]

They look like they're suffering so.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/56/Playboy_January_1992.jpg/180px-Playboy_January_1992.jpg

Just exactly what sport do you play if you're on a bikini team?

[Sean of the Thread]

Muff Diving?

[Gan]

Where do we sign up for being a trainer?

[TheEschaton]

France'll do for me.

While I do come off relatively anti-capitalist, it's definitely an "in-this-instance" situation. I think capitalism, in this country, and how it's formulating as worldwide globalization, is awful. Theoretically, I could see a "people-over-profit" capitalism, but the thing is, most of those theories are socialism renamed as something else (which I also don't mind).

As Scandanavian countries go, too much cold. Though I met a Norwegian chick last year who was sooooooo hot.

-TheE-

[Gan]

The retired general who asked about gays and lesbians serving in the military at the CNN/YouTube Republican debate on Wednesday is a co-chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.politico.com/candidates2008/demcandidates/hillary_clinton_candidate.html)'s National Military Veterans group.

Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was named a co-chairman of the group this month, according to a campaign press release.

He was also active in John F. Kerry's 2004 campaign for president.

Kerr asked candidates (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-wJkrEnmtg&eurl=http://youtube.com/republicandebate) “why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.”
After the debate, former Education Secretary Bill Bennett said on a CNN panel that he was being told Kerr was involved with the Democratic presidential campaign of Clinton, a New York senator.

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, who moderated the debate and the panel, said that if that was the case, CNN should have identified Kerr as such.

more...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7085.html
________________________________________________

hahahahahaha, sneaky - very sneaky.

[Parkbandit]

You are just being a hate monger Ganalon.. and probably a racist of some sort. There is no real proof of this one, any more than the other ones.

It might just be a very, very bad coincidence. I mean, Hillary DID say she knew nothing about this or the other ones.. I think we should just take her word for it.

[Daniel]

France'll do for me.

While I do come off relatively anti-capitalist, it's definitely an "in-this-instance" situation. I think capitalism, in this country, and how it's formulating as worldwide globalization, is awful. Theoretically, I could see a "people-over-profit" capitalism, but the thing is, most of those theories are socialism renamed as something else (which I also don't mind).

As Scandanavian countries go, too much cold. Though I met a Norwegian chick last year who was sooooooo hot.

-TheE-

No shit. Last time I was in Spain I entered up at some club with these 6 swedish girls. Omg, but unfortunately I was with the Girlfriend at the time and nothing happened :(