Consternation over canned-Clinton questions

Over the past few months, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has had quite a bit of nonsense thrown it its direction, but none of it stuck (and by “stuck,” I mean the media would try to manufacture a story, no one would care, and the “controversy” would quickly fade).

But the story about canned questions may actually prove to be a lasting embarrassment.

Late Friday, after a report surfaced from a student newspaper in Iowa, the Clinton campaign conceded a single instance in which a member of a campaign audience was prompted on what to ask the senator. Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff was reportedly pulled aside before an event and asked to pose a specific question. “They were canned,” she said. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask].”

Campaign spokesperson Mo Elleithee explained that it was an isolated incident, and that the senator didn’t know about this in advance. “This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again,” he said.

Fine, so the Clinton team screwed one up. It happens. It wasn’t the first time a presidential campaign planted a question, and it certainly won’t be the last. The campaign got caught, owned up to it, and vowed not to let it happen again. No muss, no fuss.

Except with new details emerging, the story isn’t going away.

The college student who was told what question to ask at one of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign events says “voters have the right to know what happened” and she wasn’t the only one who was planted.

In an exclusive on-camera 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 also described the process of the planted question. It’s less than flattering to the campaign.

As the student described it, a “senior Clinton staffer” asked if she wanted to ask the senator about energy policy. “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.

The staffer suggested this wouldn’t be quite good enough, because Clinton may not be familiar enough with the other candidates’ plans. Instead, he opened a binder to a page with eight questions on it, one of which was specifically planned for a college student. (“It said ‘college student’ in brackets and then the question.”)

“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. […]

“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.”

One overeager staffer planting a question is embarrassing, but a regular process is a bigger problem. Over the weekend, Geoff Mitchell, a minister who recently moved to Hamilton, Ill., from Iowa, told ABC News that he was approached this spring by Clinton’s Iowa political director Chris Haylor to ask Clinton a question about war funding. Yesterday, Huffington reported there was also a planted question during Clinton’s Senate campaign.

Now, I’m hesitant to make too big a deal out of this. First, compared to Bush’s entirely scripted townhall meetings, a couple of planted questions seems like a minor offense. Second, Clinton doesn’t need softball questions; her grasp of policy details is pretty impressive. Third, Clinton gets contentious questions from voters all the time, so it’s not as if every event is Kabuki theater.

But this is still unwelcome news for the Clinton campaign. Planted questions are wrong, and they know it. More importantly, the details suggest this was part of a common practice, not a single accident.

For that matter, all of this gives Edwards and Obama something new to criticize Clinton over — and in this case, they’re right.

I have been out of touch recently but what ever happened to the NPR story of Clinton not leaving a tip and claiming that she did?

It seems to me that they paid with a credit card and forgot to leave a tip. It seems to me that they lied about it later.

What was the end result of the tip story????

  • I would guess that this will not become a subject among candidates, because it is likely that they all do it.

  • I really don’t understand what this girl is so concerned about. She said she wanted to ask a question and the staffer gave her a choice of questions similar to what she wanted to ask. After she was called on, she chose to ask that question and not something else (which she could have done).

    To me, a truly planted question would be one where the questioner wanted to ensure that the answerer would be given an opportunity to give a particular answer. In this case, the questioner wanted to ask a type of question and get an answer to that. The fact that the question was supplied by the campaign does not change the fact that the girl wanted to ask that type of question. Frankly, if I had an opportunity to ask a question, I’d jump at the chance to use a canned question that stated my question fairly well as opposed to stumbling over my own words as I am prone to do.

    Now if the question she asked was one she was not interested in and did not want to ask but was told that that was the only way she would get to ask a question, well then I’ve got a problem with it.

  • The end result was that the campaign left a separate tip of about $100.00 for the entire establishment. Gosh Neil, you have been out of the loop—even the “allegedly-cheated waitress herself” has been asking “what’s all the fuss?”

    Now, about the “canned question” thing: If we are going to criticize Bush for “canning” his audience, then we must be equally prepared—and willing” to do the same thing to any other candidate—Reskunklican OR Dem. Otherwise, I know a lot of people who better get ready to start wearing great big “IOKIYAD” signs out in public.

    Again, Hillary ought to have been well-versed enough in HER OWN POLICY to answer any question on any issue with a transition that begins with that issue, and segues into energy policy—because all issues are both relative and interdependent upon each other.

  • Hillary’s been sitting at Georgie-Porgie’s knee. She must believe that “politician” has no boundaries whether you’re Democrat or Republican and SHE’s chosen to learn the “winner-way” from a fraud and a felon.

    Indeed, setup questions are dishonest, a form of lying, and they make dupes out of the audience. Since she doesn’t NEED setup questions, can address anything she thinks is important in her prepared remarks, and can handle difficult questions, I’ll bet she and her staff believe that they’re flattering people in the audience by choosing them to ask a question, asking for just a little bit of self-investment from individuals to “give an impression” It’s also a way to guarantee softball questions about what she thinks are the most important issues.

  • Well, now we know that we can expect more of the same from FEMA if Hillary is elected. What else will be more of the same? Let’s see… (cue broken record) …unending war in the Middle East, diminished civil liberties, national debt through the ceiling, etc.

  • Neil Wilson, Huffington Post has a recent interview with the waitress.

    The waitress still says no tip was left, and that after all the hoopla, her boss just told reporters that $100 was left so that reporters would stop calling about it.

    Oh, and that after the controversy, the Hillary campaign came back and plunked down 20 bucks.
    (on a $157 tab, that’s….12-13% tip, i think)

    While i think it’s funny that Hillary is a cheap-skate, i think the question planting is more relevent to the integrity of a candidate.

  • Suggesting questions to college students at an open forum is distasteful but is still a very far cry from Bushite pre-screening of entrants to a “public” event and signing of loyalty oaths at the door. As far as we know, no one with what could be perceived as either anti-Hillary nor pro-Republican bumper stickers or T-shirts were thrown out. Were any of these “plants” actually called upon and were any of the questions that did get asked hard questions from unscreened citizens? According to the Grinnell College Scarlet and Black newspaper, “Clinton used her discretion to select questions and called on people who had not been prepped before hand. Some of the questions asked were confusing and clearly off-message.”

    It’s one thing to try to influence an open forum, as Hillary did, but it is quite another thing to do what the Bushies do and throw Potemkin Town Hall meetings where it is all obviously a sham. If Hillary’s attempt to have questions asked about her energy policy, since she spent the day of the Grinnell Forum touring energy plants, so be it. It’s still a far cry from a FEMA newsconference, an Armstrong Williams column, a Gannon/ Guckert flaming softball or other Bush-inspired media manipulation. Next time Hill should just get her messages across in her speeches.

  • The “tip” story…the “tip” was down her fucking cleavage along with a bill for Edwards hair cut. It’s all about whose penis is bigger isn’t it. God the depths we sink to to think a story is even interesting is amazing. What does planted questions have to do with talking about policy? As long as the issues are brought up and discussed who really gives a shit who asked the question…makes it easier than saying, “well rather than talk about my laugh let me talk about my energy policy.” I’m sorry but some audiences ask the stupidest questions which are far removed from the issues of the day.

    Was the student asked the question about energy policy because the subject had not been brought up by the audience or by reporters? If the subject had come up would the student still have been asked the question? You don’t know and this whole conversation is so trivial and petty. Time to be concerned is when you are not allowed to ask questions as with Bush. I don’t even like Hillary but this dribble is stupid…but you didn’t hear that from me.

  • You can bet that none of the “eligible” questions on the senior staffer’s list were (say it with me doubtful) Patriot Act, AUMF in Iraq, and Kyl-Lieberman.

  • The media will make this all go away for her. There will be explanations that satisfy somehow, just like the mysterious tip debacle that took the media to solve that a small, intimate staff of 12 or so couldn’t get their heads around. She’s the chosen one. She sold out.

  • I just think this is ridiculous. They all do it to some extent. It’s a campaign, where the object is to get the candidate’s message out. A planted question or two is one way of doing it. It’s not a news conference. It’s not an attempt to avoid hard, serious questions. It’s an attempt to get information out, because these audiences, which consist of people, not journalists, ask a lot of idiotic questions and skip half the important issues. They tend to ask about their own situations, and how the candidate is going to take care of their personal problems. I’ve heard them. You want to tear your hair out sometimes they’re so stupid and pointless.

    Why all this outrage? Because it’s Hillary? Bush stages all his events, completely, and nobody cares, and those are official, government functions, where I would call it cheating, because he’s supposedly acting on behalf of all of us, not running his own personal campaign.

  • People.
    Reagan’s 11th commandment does not apply to the Democrats…

    When a Democrat does something dishonest… ‘fess up!
    We need to police our own so that when Diebold sweeps the Democratic party away, we won’t be content to say that we don’t care because they were no better.

    The observation she’s still better than Bush defines the expression: “Damning with faint praise.” You DON’T want to go there. This is the kind of thing Nader ran with when he said there wasn’t much difference between the parties. This shady garbage is supporting that position. Don’t justify it, condemn it.

  • If you think that all candidates in every level of government don’t do this, you are kidding yourself. I am a college student and was approached at a city council campaign event just a few weeks ago to ask a “planted” question. I did and thought nothing of it. My roommate was also approached to ask a planted question by someone in a very popular senator’s campaign a few years back. All candidates do that because they need to give time for the audience to interact but they also need to use their limited time to their full advantage to discuss issues important to them.

  • You’re right, Bri. Any one of us should be honored to be selected to ask a pre-scripted question. It’s what American Democracy was built on.

    A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is highly overrated.

  • What’s to stop anyone from agreeing to ask a planted question and then, when called upon, to ask a question of their own, the one they really want to ask? Sheesh… I used to do it in *communist Poland* and lived to tell the tale, since nobody wanted to admit to planting softball questions…

  • Bri.

    You’re very funny. Not everyone can pull off the aw-shucks I’m a big dummy shpiel with the same sort of deadpan humor as you. Kudos.

  • Perhaps we could plant a question about how her cleavage looks when she laughs.
    Certainly a lot more interesting than actual policy information, eh?

  • Seems how quickly CNN forgets they planted at least 1 question at a 2003 democratic debate.

    “CNN plants question
    at Democrats’ debate
    Student says producers drafted query for her to pose to candidates

    ———————————————————————- ———-
    Posted: November 11, 2003
    2:25 p.m. Eastern”

    link to story : http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35538

    It shouldn’t be a surprise that high profile campaign stops with lots of media coverage would need to have some sort of control and that there would be “producers” working behind the scenes to make the event run smooth and polished. How “real” is today’s reality television?

    Does it make good television to have college kids ask questions like “how does your energy plan compare to your candidates?” only to have Hillary answer that she’s not familiar with her challengers plans, and discuss her own plan…

    or to have some topics Hillary was going to talk about anyway, and allow college students and everyday folks to ask the questions.

    This is a campaign stop on the road to the white house for Hillary. She’s been asked the tough questions during her two successful campaigns as New York Senator. She’ll continue to be asked the “hard” questions up to the presedential election.

    After being elected, she’ll continue to be asked the tough questions as she leads the country in a more positive united direction.

    To say she is untruthful; to say her husband was as president…based on a campaign staffer giving this young lady a question to ask – is a stretch.

    What she’s guilty of here is running a polished campaign – maybe too shiny.Sure, let real folks ask real questions – those type of forums are coming…

    What her opponents are guilty of is using this speck of dirt as a chance to mudsling. Is this all they’ve got? If so, looks like we’ve got the right candidate…

  • Anyone else note the irony that Hillary approaches the ‘media’ with both disdain and pre-written questions?

  • I think anyone defending this by saying “her scripted questioning isn’t as blatant as Bush’s” is pretty fucking lame. Of course it isn’t. It fucking better not be.

    Bush stages his questions, and Hillary apparently does so too, for the same reason: to control the narrative, to use the media as a weapon against the lackeys.

    Screw you Clinton. You’re slimy and I can see why Murdoch cut you a check. The only reason you’ll ever win is because people will be horrified by Giuliani or Romney.

    What I hope and pray is that Edwards throws his support to Obama (or vice versa) and the progressives take down the DLC juggernaut.

  • You have got to be kidding me! Is this the best they could do. I’ve worked for a newspaper and this stuff, and more severe examples, happen frequently. Also it is not that she doesn’t know her platform;she is well versed on her platform. However, what I see is a bubbly 19 year old trying to get her 15 seconds of fame. I give it three days and no one will really care. Of all the things that we could be worrying about with the candidates we focus our attention on a 19 year old who acts as if she has busted the Watergate Scandal! Give me a break.

  • Was there anything preventing Gallo-Chasanoff from asking her own question instead of the one they suggested to her? Was the Secret Service going to hustle her out or something? If not, why is she complaining?

    Planting questions like this is a bit sleazy, but on the whole seems like a minor misdemeanor, not the grist for a multiday national story.

  • It’s an interesting conundrum. If you don’t play the game, you get reamed and laughed at for being so naïve. If you play the game, then the tactics the media had to ignore, either out of bias or because the facts were so one-sided, suddenly become open season. All that stuff journalists clammed up about can suddenly come to light. To make matters worse, this surfacing hurts her candidacy because we have scrupples, as much as we try not to, whereas Republicans would see it as “savvy” in their own.

    I still think we can’t accept the double-standard. That means first, making a bid deal out of their sins, which we don’t do. Then, if ignored, play the game, armed and ready to hit back at their hypocrisy.

    What I always hated about these rules is that if the GOP got away with it, then it would become the accepted norm. Then it’s just the way things are done. They have no credibility to complain, even when it’s justified, and if they crack down now, the way they let up on the scandal mongering after Clinton, then they’re partisans.

  • I went to a heavily attended Town Hall meeting with our two US Senators (Wyden D, Smith R). There were two guys with mics (aides?), walking around the room, taking the mics to folks who had questions. Many of the first questions were about Vietn… errr, Iraq. Folks angry about Iraq. (Of course Wyden has always been against the war, and Smith had recently come out against it, fortunate for him in this setting.)

    One of the mic-guys was walking past me and I raised my hand. He stopped and (off mic) asked what my question was about because, as he told me, they wanted a variety of subjects. This was right after the Walter Reed scandal had hit and so my question was about Walter Reed and caring for veterans in general. He let me ask it. So my point is that even in a Town Hall setting, the not-running-for-prez pols want a variety of questions. Though it was not required that I pick a canned one on the subject.

    FYI, Sen. Wyden did not take his eyes off me the entire time he was answering my question (several minutes). A little unnerving, but I still appreciated it. I had met him previously at a Dem gathering, and he was very interested in what I had to tell him. He doesn’t always vote the “right” way, but is one of the most liberal senators.

  • “compared to Bush’s entirely scripted townhall meetings” -CB

    Can liberal blogs please quit using Bush as the benchmark ?? You guys are starting to read like conservative trash,”well Clinton….”

    Hillary is no Bill and racerx hit it right on the head ,”The only reason you’ll (Hillary) ever win is because people will be horrified by Giuliani or Romney.”

    This is Bush style non-sense that will only get worse unless you the guts to call her on it.

  • I wish anyone willing to support InevitaBillary would just ask themselves this question:

    What happens after she wins her 50.0001 percent?

    My guess: the right continues to hate her and thwarts anything she’d do that we all might support (health care, access to post-secondary education, global warming), and she herself perpetuates the worst process crimes of Bush-Cheney (the presidential superduperpowers, war); the press continues to obsess over their bullshit Clinton Issues…

    …and we lose Congress in 2010, Feingold primaries Hillary–with the support of 95 percent of “people like us”–but narrowly loses, and JEB! or some other right-wing scumbag is elected in November 2012 with a mandate to basically conduct W’s third (endless?) term.

    I would submit that letting Romney or TV’s Fred or McCain reap W’s fecal inheritance is far preferable to that.

  • Is there anyone out there so naive as to think that the other candidates don’t ALSO use plants? The Bush administration has been doing it for a long time now.
    Please, wake up!

  • Is there anyone out there so naive as to think that the other candidates don’t ALSO use plants? -CR

    Excuses, excuses.

    Everyone else is doing it, so why not me.

    It’s no big deal, she just wanted a variety of questions.

    It’s only a few hundred thousands innocent dead Iranians…oh wait, that’s for a different Hillary slip-up. Sorry, wrong excuse file!

    Of all the things that we could be worrying about with the candidates we focus our attention on a 19 year old who acts as if she has busted the Watergate Scandal! Give me a break. -Marion

    That’s right! People under the drinking age aren’t allowed to point out inadequacy in Presidential Candidates. Stupid fucking young people thinking they have a voice in defense of democracy. How dare she.

    Was there anything preventing Gallo-Chasanoff from asking her own question instead of the one they suggested to her? Was the Secret Service going to hustle her out or something? -jimBOB

    If you don’t fall in line, you get tased, not escorted of the premises. Don’t you realize that six security officers cannot effectively remove a 185 lbs person any other way?

  • Comments are closed.