The Planted Question Does Bother Me; Potemkin Politicking

First off, I'm unaligned with any campaign, and I'd be delighted to vote for any of the double-digit Democratic candidates currently announced.

Secondly, I have personally visited - and benefited from the help of - Senator Clinton's Senate staff, and view her as a very capable public servant.

So please do not mistake this as an anti-Hillary bash.

The planted question incident bothers me, because I've seen that tactic used repeatedly at corporate annual meetings to protect the Chairman/CEO. It is disrespectful to owners who took the time to travel to the meeting to air substantive issues.

In the campaign context, it is disrespectful to voters who took the time out of their schedules (work, family, etc.) to listen, and who hoped to express their concerns to the candidates.

If Senator Clinton gets tough questions on this tonight, I think it is fair game, and I think she would do well to fire all involved as a sign of how serious she is about it not happening ever again.

On edit: It has the feel of Potemkin Politicking - fake questions planted by her ministers, to "fool the Empress about the value of her conquests."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=potemkin+villages

- Dave

It is a matter of respect.

... that the people who showed up don't have equally well-framed questions of their own to ask.

- Dave

extensively by * and the Republicans. Her people have been caught in the past doing other things that were directly from the GOP playbook.

Who would ever have thought DLC would use GOP tactics?? :sarcasm:

the dems have had their asses handed to them for the last 12 years, partially because of these kind of tactics. I can recall threads here in the last couple of years bemoaning the fact that the dems never play "tough" like the repubs.

I am not defending this as a strategy, I think we need to win in a more clean fashion, but we still need to win.

do it by refusing to secure the election process, never countering the KNOWN efforts undertaken by the RNC to gain control of that process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

The nominees tap into the party infrastructure that already exists - and Terry McAuliffe delivered a party infrastructure that had been weakened and collapsed since the mid90s in many crucial states like Florida and Ohio.

In fact, your reply bears out my over-arching point which was that their strategy was better. I don't agree with the tactic of planting questions, but it was used by the repubs. I do agree with fighting and winning the small battles in order to decimate the other side's party infrastructure, just like they did to us in the 90's. Unfortunately, when you play a little dirty, you sully yourself.

We need to fight harder (and yes , dirty when it is necessary) to "secure the election process" and to counter "the KNOWN efforts undertaken by the RNC to gain control of that process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted."

and get away with it the way they do the GOPs?

I don't WANT thieving Dems who would overturn elections any more than I do thieving Republicans. It's bad character through and through.

BTW, when I said the DNC didn't COUNTER - I didn't mean they didn't DO the same as RNC - I meant they didn't counter as in STOP the known tactics, as in DEFEND honest elections.

As far as the media go, I think of them kind of like water on a cookie sheet. Ever try to carry a cookie sheet full of water? It sways out of balance really easily. During the Clinton years, the media LOVED Bill. They are more of a momentum exaggerating force than anything.

I certainly was not advocating having the dems steal elections. Just saying that they need to fight, stand by their principles (if they have any).

... and if they try this tactic in Upper Appalachia, they'd better find a plant who "doesn't talk funny."

; )

- Dave

:)

The same would apply for the Appalachians in northeast TN.

They might even test the questioner's "moonshine stomach," for good measure!

:rofl:

- Dave

... does rankle "a bit."

- Dave

candidates ask to be asked...we'll never know cause it has been covered up by now....what a bunch of shit.

If I wanted someone to ask me about health care, and I was afraid no one would, don't you think I would ASK someone to.

If I wanted someone to ask me about what I would do with Iraq wouldn't I get someone to.

And on and on and on...what in the S.O.B. hell is the matter with you bunch of Obama supporters...stoop stoop stoop that low you might be able to find more bullshit.

and no amount of shit you throw at the other candidates is going to cover that up.

Unless you have some facts? :eyes:

I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm listening carefully to each candidate.

Hillary promised a "listening campaign," not a "question planting campaign."

If the audience is not bringing up certain topics that she wants to cover, then she can make a point to hit those in closing remarks, of her own volition. (In fact, the campaign would learn more, and be more effective, by seeing what topics ARE brought up by the audiences. What matters most for an effective campaign is what's on the voters' minds, not the candidate's.)

JMHO.

- Dave

about, say, health care, and another to hand them a question already written out. That is, I believe, happened in Clinton's case.

that maybe there is more interest or concern about that topic than there really is.

It is dishonest, period. The Clinton campaign should admit it, stop it, and move on.

nm

What century are you living in?

How about afraid that some one will ask a substantive question about health care, global warming etc...?

Talk about stooping lower and lower. :eyes:

Pathetic.

everybody uses it, it's never been painted as "corrupt" (though I see your point, CGA) It would have been more honest for Hillary to propose the question herself, though. I hope she does that from now on. It's all smoke and mirrors, isn't it?

I think everybody should drop this one, and search back in theor transcripts to see if they did it themselves at any time. They're all vulnerable, even the Government.

... they often use a "doddering" shareholder who has been an owner for "a very long time," who goes on to lob a long, meandering softball question. Or, they pick a very pretty blonde.

If there is a certain topic that her campaign wants to inject into the public discussion, there's no reason why she cannot inject it in her opening or closing remarks. If the new topic starts generating spontaneous questions at future stops, chances are they've hit pay dirt.

But without that feedback loop from the voters, the "strategists" are yelling in their own echo chamber.

- Dave

I don't think that the intent was to mislead people. Each of the candidates has a list of issues that they try to address at every opportunity, of course, and each candidate has his or her "pet" issues. "Planting" questions would ensure that all of those issues get brought up.

Is it proper? Who knows. I agree that it takes time away from others who might want to ask questions, but I think it also ensures that the variety of issues addressed is wider than it might ordinarily be.

The potential problem with it is that there may be more focus on what the candidate thinks is important than on what the attendees see as important issues.

The clear implication from a "town-hall" style meeting is an open question and answer session. The questioner was steered away from the question she wanted to ask ostensibly because Hillary was ignorant of the other candidates' views. Or maybe she was ignorant of the topic. We'll never know...

If she had her own question to ask, why would she accept one from the Clinton campaign?

Sorry, but that makes no sense. If she had a question to ask, she should have done so.

and she was led to believe that asking the "right" question would get her called on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=69368

And got her plenty of attention.

She certainly had the right to refuse. If she thought that planted questions were so dishonest, why'd she agree to do it?

... asked her original question, snookering the campaign staff at their own game?

- Dave

I give her credit for fulfilling her "promise" to the campaign, but if she really felt that giving her the question was dishonest, she certainly would have been within her rights to ask the question she wanted to ask in the first place.

1. If Senator Clinton truly did not know beforehand, then there would have been no visible signs of her being flustered by the "change-up pitch" from a softball to a curveball.

2. If the campaign staff castigated the young woman afterwards, that might've produced an even worse story for the campaign.

- Dave

Re: #2 - that truly would have been a problem and a much more serious one.

because she went along with a dishonest scheme? IMO it's pretty courageous to come out afterwards and admit it was wrong.

I really don't think you want to pursue this line.

Victim of what? Getting some recognition? Being influenced by a politician?

She wasn't even misled, as others have claimed. She was told that asking the "right" question would probably get her called upon. That was certainly accurate, wasn't it?

This is getting too funny.

Wow, way to blow a situation completely out of proportion.

Why stop there?

Why not declare that planting a question was larceny?

Rape of our republic!

Burglary of ideas!

Assault on all that is good and proper!

Prostituting our very freedoms!

Bribe. That might be the funniest thing I've ever read on DU.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

That might be the best example I've seen on DU.

... usually characterized by the tempter being "technically honest" with the victim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust

And so far, Hillary's campaign has produced nothing like a Daniel Webster to explain this away with a silver tongue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil_and_Daniel_Webster_%28short_story%29

- Dave

that doesn't apply to modern ethics (brilliant references) :thumbsup:

... regarding her campaign's various iterative explanations.

; )

- Dave

To be clear, I am not attempting to defend the honesty or appropriateness of the Clinton campaign's actions. I am, however, pointing out that others are claiming that the young lady was misled by the Clinton campaign when no such event ever occurred.

Do I think it was appropriate? As I indicated in my initial response in this thread, that interpretation depends largely on the intent of the action. Planting questions is inherently questionable, but I seriously disagree that the intent was the rape and pillage of American politics that others are making out of it.

... and any attempt to lay blame on the young woman is repugnant.

Many people who attend these events are in awe of the candidate. Most people, I'd dare say, are unsure of how to conduct themselves at such an event (many are first time attendees). So I think a lot of people are easily guided into conforming their behavior to instructions received by "officialdom."

Hopefully, this young woman has learned a lesson: to thy own self be true.

- Dave

And, I guarantee that Clinton isn't the first, last, or only candidate doing so.

The campaigns have very specific ideas on what should be covered in campaign stops, town hall meetings, debates, etc., and I am all but certain that most, if not all, of them do whatever possible to ensure that those ideas are addressed as often as humanly possible.

What didn't she learn as a result of an unasked question?

What didn't her campaign learn that might've made them more effective in the general?

If she has a checklist of topics to cover, she can do that in her opening and closing remarks. In fact, addressing them in her opening remarks may embolden someone to ask a related question during the Q&A that they otherwise wouldn't have asked - again, revealing a nuance that helps the campaign later.

- Dave

I don't pretend to know the motivations of the Clinton campaign, but at the risk of repeating myself, I tend to believe that the intent of the question was to ensure that certain topics got attention.

Yes, she could have included them in her remarks (and probably did), but in the context of a town hall meeting, it's likely that the questions being asked by the audience were going to get significantly more attention (by other attendees) than her prepared remarks.

Which is more than likely why they planted the question in the first place. They knew what they were doing.

Edit: clarification

... of engaging in a real give-and-take discussion here than the campaign event itself.

Are you declared as a candidate yet?

: )

- Dave

I've considered politics, but I think I'd verbally shoot myself in the foot repeatedly. :)

The bottom line is that I do agree with you - the tactic was ill-advised and the way it was handled after the event made the situation significantly worse.

The political cynic in me, though, tends to believe that stuff like this goes on all the time. I could certainly be wrong on that - and, in all honesty, I certainly hope so - but I don't really think I am.

I guess that's why I don't see this in the same seriousness as other people seem to. Was it inappropriate? Sure. Is it on the same level as push-polling, playing the race/gender/sexual orientation cards, starting vicious rumors, etc.? I just don't think so. I think stuff like this happens all the time, and it's getting a lot of press primarily because of front-runner-itis.

... from jumping in.

; )

- Dave

He should probably be higher on my list than he is. I'm having a difficult time forgiving his relationship with MBNA, however, regardless of its political expediency. When in Delaware....

... but terminally tone deaf.

His consolation? Long after the other candidates' words have faded, his will still be streaming out into the far reaches of the universe.

- Dave

He does tend to make his political moments rather memorable.

because they've created a PR fiasco. If they don't come clean on this tonight, this will haunt Hillary's campaign to the end.

Honest/Not, Hill. Take your pick.

In more than 20 years of providing adult education and client service training, it's become clear that the only way to learn is to ASK questions. That's how you determine what's on a person's mind, what keeps them up at night, what are their hopes, dreams, and fears. The minute you start answering questions, no matter what you're trying to sell (ideas, products, etc.) you go from learning to selling. The next stage has to be about solutions, but if you provide a solution to the wrong problem, nobody's going to buy it.

My post has absolutely nothing to do with Hillary specifically, but, sadly, with just about any candidate I've ever heard speak.

... for bringing that to my attention. Let me ask my staffers to look into it, brief me, and I promise to address it after I've had a chance to familiarize myself with the issues."

- Dave

Have *you* announced your candidacy? :)

I'm not sure why politicians are so afraid to respond to a question in that manner, particularly in an environment like a town-hall meeting. An admission that more information is required (with appropriate follow-up) is much better than a meandering non-answer.

... that they don't know everything about everything, but that they are willing to educate themselves about the issues voters care about, and then take a position.

- Dave

The rub comes when the "seller" doesn't follow up and do something about it. Which is the basic issue with what's going on in Congress today. The electorate clearly told their representatives what they believed the problems were, and nothing has been done to truly address those problems. Lots of posturing, lots of politicking, but precious little in terms of execution. That "employee" would've been out on his/her ear months ago. I know that government is not business, per se, but you'd think (OK, I'D think) that with all the influence that the corporate sector supposedly has, that there'd be a greater bent towards something resembling results.

... if I promised my boss to follow up on an issue, and didn't, I'd be staring at the business end of discipline.

Surely you're not suggesting that the electorate hold their reps accountable next November?

; )

- Dave

Sadly, I'm not yet convinced that dumping every pug and DINO would be enough to solve the problem(s).

some of the clintonites I've read are planting..Blame the Victim.

It really is disgusting.

or "What I Learned From My Husband About Disingenuousness"

By H. Clinton -- at bookstores now!

*groan*

- Dave

Global Warming, Because The Bush Administration is Doing Nothing."

Democrats have a genetic PR deficiency.

wrong with it and you're busted then just get your reasoning out ..don't deny you had questions planted with that young woman.

it's a fake stage setting for the candidates' predetermined messaging.

People who excuse this are messed up.

And probably hypocrites, as Bush has lambasted by DU'ers for doing the SAME THING.

It has the feel of Potemkin villages, "erected to fool the Empress about the value of her conquests"...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=potemkin+villages

- Dave

"How are we gonna beat that adulterous crossdresser?"

If you are going to plant a question, make it count for something.

:rofl: :thumbsup:

n/t

- Dave

McCain doesn't appear to be suffering any ill-effects from the similar question, at least not among his party.

your version is not demeaning to either cross-dressers or adulterers! :)

just to be equivalent.

On edit--in other words, this kind of tactic should be expected from Hillary. I'm sure she has others up her sleeve.

... is that the planted question - and the time the answer ate up - may well have prevented one or more other questioners from being able to raise issues that would have benefited the campaign.

- Dave

CONSEQUENCES!

they lied about it and now they can't do that anymore with almost year to go.

Bill barely survived NH in 92. That was pre-Internet, and he is a natural.

The "rapid response" timeframe has shrunk by at least an order of magnitude since then, with YouTube and "the Internets."

- Dave

We don't need a fascist with a (D) behind their name, any more than a fascist with an (R) behind their name.

Let that asshat, Bushprotecting Carville chew on THAT!

who did NOT have to sign an oath of loyaly before even being able to ask a question at all?


I have come to the conclusion that America cannot handle the truth because the truth will destroy our false sense of security that we still matter and yet instead of taking to the streets and risk losing our little toys it would just leave us whiny and depressed. That is how I view the majority of todays citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall

At least jobs were doled out to ordinary people in return for their support.

; )

- Dave

I am not saying, well he did it, she did it, I am saying to pretend that have not been aware that this is old news when it comes to political style forums that involve so called citizens answering real questions and getting real answers is a thing of the past than you just haven't been paying attention.

What bothers me about this new attack on Hillary is that its not new nor is it just about her yet her name is front and center.

It really is that simple.

... on the Tammany Hall reference.

I'm very serious about one thing, though: I've seen local public servants take spontaneous barrages of questions with grace, aplomb, humility, and facts. At the national level, I think a serious candidate should have long ago mastered that art.

- Dave

"I'm very serious about one thing, though: I've seen local public servants take spontaneous barrages of questions with grace, aplomb, humility, and facts. At the national level, I think a serious candidate should have long ago mastered that art."

- Dave

And, I think the irony is that hillary is capable of that..so what's up with all the planted questions? We need to have more sponteniety in polictics and less manipulation.

the attacks encouraged and invented by the likes of Rove, Hannity, Coulter etc to be used by conservative supporters, such grace and humility seem to have become a thing of the past in such a forum, would you not agree that plants for the others side are being used in this forums to attempt to rile and embarrass a candidate with idiotic questions?

I think they have become scared of the tactics used by the GOP that far too many media outlets laughed about early on when it was done to anyone considered Democratic.

Look at who is president of this country and how the media herald his style as unique at one time?

He is far from capable of having mastered such an art and proves it every time he stands in front of a mike and yet for some he is God like where politicians like him have become acceptable, its a scary political world these days when what you wish for is no longer seen as a winning combination, at least not by the media who happen to make the thoughts for people who fail to think for themselves.

What would JFK do?

Would he drop to the lowest common denominator?

Or would he seek to elevate the level of discourse?

- Dave

... in any Democratic contender's mind, especially when in doubt.

- Dave

of the "the dog ate my homework" tries around here.

... at getting caught (and maybe a little fearful that they're going to lose their campaign jobs before they translate into policymaking positions).

Some of it is a departure from old-fashioned sensibilities. Got caught? Own up to it, apologize sincerely, and move on. Don't dribble out a series of excuses, trying to find the "plausibility point," and hope it sticks.

- Dave

hillary awhile ago, not to apologize. mark penn?

... if ever there were one.

How much money has he banked spinning the Empress's New Clothes?

He fancies himself the Democratic Karl Rove. I despise Karl Rove, but I'll give him one major leg up on Mark Penn: Rove understands the purple states. Mark Penn does not.

- Dave

Any politician worth her salt knows how to steer the answer to ANY question to the subject she wants to talk about. I'm pretty sure Sen. Clinton is able to do that. Planting questioners was not just foolhardy, it was a waste of time.

Exhibit A: William Jefferson Clinton.

: )

- Dave

The answer starts off on the same topic, then veers off to whatever the candidate wants to address.

If I were on her campaign staff, I'd be urging her to avoid that lead-in.

It's defensive. Think about when you argue with your husband, wife, partner, significant other, parent, child, etc.

When they cross their arms and say, "Look," before answering you, what's your reaction?

- Dave

verbal habit that some have to preface their points. It could get annoying if done to distraction. I didn't know that was one of her "point makers" cause I don't watch the debates. It is "defensive".

You have to mix it up to be interesting and have people really interested in what you have to say.

... is the unspoken message, "My viewpoint on this is far superior to yours. You can argue with me until you're blue in the face, but I'm right, you're wrong, and I'm not going to concede any more ground than I already have. Take what I've given you to this point and move on."

It conveys a certain sense of condescending fatigue with the other side's continued pressing of the issue, whatever that issue happens to be.

UNLESS the words are: "Look, I'm really sorry."

Language is funny that way.

- Dave

defensive, simultaneously! Which, I guess is what condescension is now that I'm "looking" at this angle.

No need for either, really, if you're sure of yourself and your position on our issues.

And, I'm happy to realize this because I have someone in my work life who can be condescending at times and this helps me get it. At first I was offended and now I just ignore it.

"moron".

Wolf: (insert "do you still beat your spouse"-type question here)

Hillary: "Look, moron..."

... to see her do that!

:rofl:

- Dave

... and this is not going to die out in the next news cycle on its own.

If Clinton is going to be the Democratic Nominee she needs to show some skill in handling this matter, just as you proposed in the OP.

It is not only wrong, but it creates an appearance of being less than forthright with the voters which she must dispel immediately. That appearance of impropriety will dog her until she does address it forcefully and put it behind her.

It cannot be triangulated, the subject of numerous 'trial balloon' explanations, and just hoping it will go away on its own.

... sticks, I'm afraid.

Your guy has made some inroads with this.

- Dave

When you think about Nixon's involvement with the break in at the Democratic Headquarters you realize in hindsight that Nixon would have won by a huge margin if the break in had never occurred. Yet someone in his campaign decided this needed to be done to insure victory in the upcoming election.

I am not comparing Hillary's Campaign to the egregious conduct of the CREEP(Committee to Reelect the President).

But it is instructive to remember that when you are leading, you need to protect that lead by not doing anything unnecessary and inappropriate to protect that lead.

The fact it happened reflects more on her control over her own campaign and what they are willing to do to win, than the damage done by the acts themselves.

... it's going to be an issue, I think.

- Dave

Problem was, they painted over the name on the roof, "Day Dream Ranch," and destroyed the historic character of our city park.

I went to the event, and Bush ended the photo-op speech with a comment about aid to the Contras helping make Nicaragua safe. The idea was to get the end of speech applause for the Nicaragua policy. This cover-up of the ongoing crimes was before Iran-Contra broke. Well, I wasn't going to have any of that, so I yelled loudly, "Unless you are dead." The crowd was stunned to silence and turned to look at me. They had wasted half a barn of paint.

I went to Central America to investigate the La Penca bombing and the murder of Linda Frasier, etc. and was stabbed nine times. Yeah, they really helped make it safe down there, if you were on the "right" side of their barn! Later that year, Iran-Contra broke. Then Ben Linder was shot point blank. So far, noone has been brought to justice for the murder of these America citizens, or for stabbing me for that matter.

it's not forthright at all, either. I do find it so funny that people and other candidates are getting their panties in a wad over this.. it's like they smell blood and are looking for anything to attack her. Frankly, I've lost interest in all the other candidates in the past few months because all the do is RUN AGAINST Senator Clinton, not run on their own merits. The politics of personal destruction is alive and well in our party, once again. Gotta make sure that they trash the other candidates so badly that it makes it impossible to compete against the Republican candidate in the big election. I'm thinking Karl Rove didn't retire.. he's just working for Edwards or Obama.

... it's the staffers who don't understand the cardinal rules of campaigning, and who are too cute by at least half in how they explain themselves when caught (if they don't understand/apply the cardinal rules).

- Dave

AND the people in America DIDN'T FUCKING CARE!!!!! Guess what?? the only people that fucking care are the predatory democratic challengers who seem incapable lately of running on their own merits. Oh, and their supporters here on DU who are crying about this... American voters don't fucking care, they just don't.

Remember back when people on DU actually bitched about REPUBLICANS, instead of HIllary Clinton? Remember all the bullshit Bush pulled in the elections? It didn't fucking matter... he's the pResident now, isn't he?

America doesn't really care about this bullshit, what they DO care about is getting out of this economic crisis, out of Iraq, and having health care. The wonks and the desperate challengers (like edwards bullshit faux website attacking Senator Clinton on this), and their minions care.

but y'all don't get that.

1. As long as we're marginally better than Bush in our tactics, it's OK?

+

2. Skip the primaries?

- Dave

which makes it despicable

used it this season.

... I would bet Mitt, McCain, Rudy, and Huckabee have all done it, if I had to lay hard money on the roulette wheel - after all, it's a Bush/Rove approved tactic.

- Dave