I bet the next time they do this they will use a better vetting process to find someone who wont rat them out about planting questions again.

If she has done this once I am sure in my opinion this has happened many times before. how much money says we don't see Russert the next debate for asking hard questions?....

You have to love them all they are so cute when they screw up and try to come back. Bet if that was a republican that had done it we would be hearing for calls for them to drop the race now. Hey might even see the dems on the senate floor writing a letter to their campaign manager demanding conferring of the practice and demanding withdrawal now.

Have a good day all

Just like when liberals make TV shows and movies. They have to play the conservatives and control the conversation.

Why are they afraid of real honest and open debate?

How dare we ask her to take a position on anything!

how dare we ask her for a direct answer!

How dare we question her answers from earlier than this precise moment!

how dare we try to find out what are plans are if elected (God forbid!) President!

how dare we attempt to challenge her at all!

how dare we make this campaign anything but a cake walk!!

I am seeing the same tactics from the '92 election.

I would like to see someone ask Hillary if she would favor the regulation of, or a ban on, Dihydrogen Monoxide.

Would she even get the joke?

Notice how the campaign was quick to point out that Hillary had nothing to do with this...it was an aide, who now promises never to do it again. What horse manure. You can bet that Hillary is inimately involved in every aspect of her campaign.

Sounds like she took a play from the FEMA "news" conference during the California fire storms....

Did Jeff Gannon switch parties?

Just recently Ms. Hillary accused the questioneer of "planting".

fox news showed her lamenting that it was a plant question

Are you kidding? George Bush's campaign ran the most tightly controlled 'public' events in history. ALL attendees were pre-screened for allegiance to Bush, questions were pre-screened, the campaign even planted rapid reaction forces to shout down anyone who dared question (or tried to question) the President with anything toughter than, "What can I do to support you?".

None of these things bothered you, nor did you ever comment on them. As with everything else you discuss, it only matters when a Democrat is involved. What a ridiculous, hypocritical clown you are.

the candidate who is unwilling to get into an unexpected situation. She has a script, and she wants to stick to it.

Whoah, you're pushing into spoof territory here. I mean, a Bushbot getting all clutch-the-pearls because a candidate is "unwilling to get into an unexpected situation" and "has a script and wants to stick to it?" Wow.

Bush's Potemkin Villages--oh, I'm sorry, "town halls"--quickly became a joke due to their meticulously scripted and stage-managed nature, right down to who gets camera time (as Frank Luntz points out, you have to always strategically position the few minorities you can find to attend to make sure they get max exposure), the prescreened questions, and the fact that you had to sign a loyalty oath to get in.

Geez, Mark, this is comically bad, even for you.

alex, yes. And liberals criticized that, yes?

Notice how the campaign was quick to point out that Hillary had nothing to do with this...it was an aide, who now promises never to do it again.

I wonder if this is the same aide who left the $100 tip that must have somehow gotten stolen by a co-worker. And is this the same aide who then returned to the restaurant and replaced that $100 tip with a $20 tip?

UPDATE: Fox News is now reporting on another Q & A planting incident by the Clinton campaign. Below's an excerpt and here's the
link:

"SIOUX CITY, Iowa — For the second time in as many days, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has had to deal with accusations of planting questions during public appearances."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310417,00.html

"Sounds like she took a play from the FEMA "news" conference during the California fire storms....
Posted by: alexanderdelarge"

"alex, yes. And liberals criticized that, yes?
Posted by: Kahn"

Kahn makes a good point. If you criticized FEMA for their fake conference, shouldn't you be doing the same With Mrs. Clinton? The other side of the coin is that anyone who is criticizing Mrs. Clinton should also be criticizing FEMA.

Casper,

As I recall, even the head of Homeland Security roundly and rapidly condemned that press conference. Hillary leaves the denials and spin to her underlings.

Its important to remember that no one from Homeland Security is running for office, but she is running to gain the TRUST of the public to lead this country. Big difference.

As I often do, Casper, I find myself in complete agreement with you. I didn't find the FEMA "press conference" scandalous; I thought it was just stupid. They were in a closely scrutinized situation where they were going to be evaluated on performance, so message control was a waste of effort even if they had pulled it off. Once they were exposed, it became the image that defined them.

By the same token, I can hardly remember a candidacy that has disgusted me as much as Clinton's. A simple yes or no question sets her off on a tap dance that is obviously tightly tested and scripted. Until we stop voting for people who refuse to take stands, we get what we deserve.

Kahn,
You want honest debate than let us debate something.

No name calling no spin no fluff just fact based opinions offer in a point counter point format from me. You pick the topic.

markalicious
ok...i get it...you hate hillary
i'm not a big fan of her either
the point is
all politicians do this
and it's not illegal
but it's totally dirtbag in nature
and you're right
there's nothing she won't do to become president
just like every single other candidate

funny......like you don't plant stuff in your blog ?
to plan an outcome?
i know..i know.....you'l say..."but i'm not running for pres"
the point being
this is human nature.....
you earthlings are a strange bunch

Whatever Demo-publican Hillary Clinton has done... george w. bush has done worse.

I can always count on the leftwing moonbats to to chime in with the "EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT, WHY CAN'T WEEEeeeeeEEEE?" defense. Well, before I explore that path, let me point out that Democrats also claim moral and ethical superiority to Republicans. Doesn't that mean that you should also be above cheap tricks like this? If her Thighness really is "the smartest woman in America", as some have claimed, why can't she take unscripted questions? In the 2nd reported incident not only did Hilary try to convince attendees to throw softballs, she canceled the Q&A session altogether when her staffers couldn't find any takers.

Now, as far as "Well, did it, TOO!", I've seen those charges on and off since - what should we call this one? "Plantgate"? was first reported but never with any supporting evidence. I've seen Code Pink screwballs infiltrate GOP meetings so they could strip down to their bellybuttons and scream abuse and Condi Rice got (fake) blood-smeared hands waved in her face at a recent Congressional hearing but weeding out kooks like these is a basic security issue. I've not seen any credible evidence that Bush planted shills in his audiences and yes, I've looked at the Jeff Gannon kerfluffle. It's one thing to call on a reporter you know is friendly to you - everyone in the audience knows he is, too - and coaching a privace citizen to ask a certain question so the politician can "surprise" everyone with his indepth knowledge of the issues affecting ordinary people.

In 93 Bill Clinton held a number of "public town hall meetings" where the audeinces and questioners were pre-screened and he was provided with scripted answers. Ever since Bubba got caught the Clintonestae have claimed, "Everyone else does it!" but they always eeem to come up short on proof.

"Are you kidding? George Bush's campaign ran the most tightly controlled 'public' events in history. ALL attendees were pre-screened for allegiance to Bush, questions were pre-screened, the campaign even planted rapid reaction forces to shout down anyone who dared question (or tried to question) the President with anything toughter than, "What can I do to support you?".

None of these things bothered you, nor did you ever comment on them. As with everything else you discuss, it only matters when a Democrat is involved. What a ridiculous, hypocritical clown you are."

Exactly! How soon you tards forget. Both sides do this all the time, not just Hillary. Nice try Noonan.

There is a HUGE difference between trying to avoid having an event disrupted by screening out people who are likely to cause trouble, and planting questions. Duh.

For one thing, a candidate owes it to his supporters to allow then to meet in an environment that is not only pleasant but safe. If I support ANY candidate I not only want to be able to see that candidate speak, I DEMAND that I be allowed to do so, without being disrupted or even threatened by those who not only do not support him BUT WHO WANT TO SILENCE HIM.

This is what the silly rabid neosocialists simply cannot GET. They whine and holler about "freedoms" yet at the same time they demand the right to be the ones who define those freedoms and dole them out----but only to those they have decided 'deserve' them.

After having peaceful gatherings of political supporters disrupted and ruined by people whose only goals were to impose their will on others and to interrupt free speech, it was no wonder that organizers decided to avoid that at all costs.

And events can become dangerous when strident opposition tries to intervene. We have seen conservatives physically attacked on stage when trying to deliver messages deemed unacceptable by radicals. (Interestingly enough, at so-called liberal schools which preach "Free Speech" while at the same time trying to deprive others of same...) We have seen scuffles at SPORTING EVENTS, for Gawd's sake, when opponents have become too emotional---what can happen when someone pays a lot of money to take his family to an event to see a candidate they love and want to see in the White House, only to have the people in the next row shouting obscenities and trying to drown out the speaker? The potential for violent confrontation is clear.

It is the responsibility of the organizers to protect those who attend, just as it is their responsibility to see to it that their money is not wasted, if they have paid to attend, by allowing rabble to take the value of that attendance away from them.

The issue of planting questions is far more serious, but more to the point, regarding the pathetic efforts of the Usual Suspects, our Budding Socialists (the BSers, of course) to try to defend this practice by trying to equate it to screening attendees at speeches, there is no comparison whatsoever. None.

Regarding the whine about the Bush rallies: Bush paid for those venues, and he had the right to use them as he chose. If he chose to use them to speak to supporters, he every right to limit attendance to supporters.

You guys are just soooo soooo silly.

markalovable:
no one can be shocked by this
what's more shocking is anyone who thinks
than any forum with any politician
isn't completely scripted from start to finish
gwb showed this
and before him there were plenty of others
so whether left or right
there's no better or righteous side to either side doing it

Jeff Gannon

“IT’S NEWS TO ME”

Hillary Clinton declines to speak to the issues - or at least provide real answers to real questions, while opting for the more PC Global Warming ones - even if she has to script them herself. Of which she currently says, “It’s news to me.” How else could the Clinton staged media have reported Hillary’s remarkable comeback, “you know,” after the Illegal Alien Driver’s License (Gotcha) debacle?

But like a good many Americans (and many good Americans), I don’t want that duo back in the White House. With the Clintons, what is past is prologue. And Hillary will come back swinging. Then there’s the incidence of Al Qaeda flight students, trained at the University of Bill Clinton. Why does this remain a non-issue? Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it:” http://theseedsof9-11.com

Hillary Clinton: Positively Pandering, Definitely Duplicitous, Ultimately Unelectable.

In 2000 Primary Bush came for a "public" question and answer session with several cancer researchers at my university including my thesis advisor. My advisor was lucky enough to be invited but was given a question to ask by the department head who was given the question by the dean of the medical school who did so with strong caution to deviate at risk of career......

true story

Planted questions, placing the blame on an underling, that's right out of the Bush playbook. Looks like presidential material in Republican terms.

So Neologic and Aztec, are you both condeming Hillary for this or not? Her denial of knowledge is beyond belief. The girl who was used for the implant claims that about 200 people were raising their hands at the time, but she was the one called upon. Apparently there were other planted questions.

What are the odds? Sounds like the same as Hillary' futures speculation which turned $1,000 into $100,000 in a very short time.

What about the Hillary campaign warning Wolf Blitzer not to permit a repeat of the sins of the last debate or else...?

If she is using this type of deception and intimidation as a candidate, just image what it will be like when she is President.

Phnx, If I'm comparing her to Bush, that is very much a condemnation.

If she is using this type of deception and intimidation as a candidate, just image what it will be like when she is President.

I don't have to wonder, just look at the present administration, she will be just as abusive. I don't feel the need to defend every action of every Democrat.

Wait...is this the same group that defended the faux FEMA news conference? How unflattering for the pot to call the kettle black!

In 2000 Primary Bush came for a "public" question and answer session with several cancer researchers at my university including my thesis advisor. My advisor was lucky enough to be invited but was given a question to ask by the department head who was given the question by the dean of the medical school who did so with strong caution to deviate at risk of career......

true story

You're not a credible source. However, assuming for the sake of argument that you're not lying and your advisor didn't overstate the case to you, the question was planted by your advisor's dean, not the Bush campaign staff. If your advisor had tenure any "veiled threats" by the dean would be meaningless, anyway.

In any event the Q&A was with cancer researchers about - presumably - cancer research. Campaign staffs will ask attendees or those hosting the event to restrict questions to the subject at hand and not go on off-topic polemics. Your advisor's dean may have been worried that he was such a partisan gasbac that he'd go off on a tirade about free trade or the CIA conspiracy to sell crack cocaine in the ghettos - I don't know your advisor, I have no idea. But the point again is that the question wasn't planted by GW Bush or his staff.

Hillary or her staff have been caught redhanded planting questions at OPEN FORUMS - public townhall meetings. Not just suggesting topics, but handing out pre-printed questions to attendees. When they can't get anyone to use their questions or are alerted that questions will be asked that they don't want to answer they cancel the whole Q&A session. That's a level of control and micromanaging you'd only think you'd see in the old Soviet Union or at a rally for Saddam Hussein, pre-invasion.

Jeff Gannon

I've dealt with that. However, here's the question he asked that some reporters said, "was so friendly it looked like it had been planted":

"Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. (Senate Minority Leader) Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And (Senator) Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work – you've said you are going to reach out to these people – how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

Gannon (real name James Guckert) has stated that he came up with the question himself, that it wasn't "planted". No one has ever provided any credible evidence that it was. There's no evidence that the WH Press secretary called on him out of turn or more often than other mindor-league reporters in the press pool. he got his press pass the same way hundreds of others have since the 1990s, when the Clinton Administration got court-ordered to relax the rules.

The episode was mildly amusing and highlights what wasn't commonly known: Far from being an exclusive club of the "best of the best' in the news business, the White House Press Pool is actually a mob of reporter working for both highly regarded news organizations and fringe news/press release groups of dubious credibility whose only qualification is that somewhere, somehow, they have a byline. Gannon ne-Guckert wasn't the kookiest "reporter" in the room that day and Talon News wasn't the least-read among the news organizations represented.

Might it be possible that this is the type of thing that happens with some regularity in ALL campaigns?
Shocking !!
Shocking !!