Can you explain what this means to you? Bush is mentioned *once *in a thread about FEMA constructing a press conference using only its employees–an event which the white house condemned. It is neither a personal pitting of Bush nor analogous to what happened here.
How does one review the history of the 20th and late 19th centuries and come to these conclusions? Were Wilson, Kennedy, LBJ, and Clinton not “real Democrats”?
Can’t resist noting that the Democrats who supported Wilson on entering WWI actually had the integrity to vote to declare war, not hand a President a blank check to do whatever he wants and then whine and weasel afterwards.
Well, it’s an effective baiting, because here I am. 
And I think it’s very lame of Hillary. She wasn’t my first choice anyway, but this tends to confirm for me what I already thought of her.
Ah, the equivalency argument. 
I think there is a difference between a candidate (for any party) planting questions, presumably in an attempt to get a campaign message out in a particular fashion, and a politician in a news conference answering to the nation for her actions planting questions. If Hilary the candidate plants questions in a campaign stop Q&A I think it’s not anything close to the same thing as if Hilary the Senator plants questions at a news conference about the latest bill she’s co-sponsoring or whatever.
The purpose of the campaign stop is for the candidate to communicate her platform to the public. A planted question is only slightly more dishonest than most other techniques used in campaigns, and less dishonest than some (like all those Candidate X voted against giving food to starving children ads where the measure in question was a last-minute rider on a craptastic larger bill). The purpose of a press conference by a politician in office is to inform the public of the actions of government. A planted question in that venue is in effect an attempt to mislead the public away from the whole and unvarnished truth, and is a much more serious offense.
Meh. Maybe there would have been such threads, maybe not. I consider myself an honest observer, and I can’t say one way or the other whether would be a thread about this had it been Bush, but I’m pretty darn sure there would not have been “threads”, plural.
This is fairly left leaning board. But Hillary is probably the least favored of the Democratic candidates here. I’m not thrilled about the idea of an HRC administration, but I suspect it’ll be a hell of a lot better than Bush’s, and I can easily live with her in the WH.
Maybe this has already been covered, but HRC was merely borrowing a page from the Bush-Cheney handbook. From the beginning of the first campaign to the present, Mr. Bush has faced fewer than two dozen audiences that didn’t like him. Democrats were turned away at the door, and questions were scripted. Those phony “town meetings” for Social Security, where every question started out with, “Thank God you’re president,” were a bald-faced example.
I’m not including White House press conferences, because the prez is in complete control there. He can refuse to deal with questions he doesn’t like. Reporters who ask pointed questions won’t be called on next time.
It was a very successful tactic for the current crew. Most people seeing sound bites on television did not know Mr. Bush knew the softball question was coming. They only thought he looked presidential, knocking it over the fence. George got away with it, so why should Hillary be too good to use the same ploy?
Band Name!
George “got away with it”? Really? And he was the first president ever to duck hard questions and call on people serving up softballs?
And regarding Hillary, tu quoque is a good defense?
There are still lots of potential voters who are not Hillarycrats or Giulians, and who might just be swayed by perceptions of sleaze over what others would sniffily refer to as matters of substance.
By the way, I think “Hillary Clinton and the Planted Question” would make a good children’s book title.
Yeah, it was band name or Harry Potter title.
I will admit that the substance of this thread has, to some extent, weakened one of the central themes of my OP: there has been plenty of condemnation of this tactic.
So I may have been a little off base on that argument.
I guess it’s the Dem equivalent of “But Clinton got a blowjob!!1!11!”
I did not say that. I think what she did was stupid.
I guess I should have said “In any case, this practice is just stupid, and no public official, or anyone running for public office, should do it”
But not just public office. A few years ago, Sony was exposed as having a fake movie reviewer who always gave them glowing movie reviews. That was bad too. It would have been good if Sony paid some penalty in the market place for pulling a stunt like that, though I think no one altered their buying or movie-going habits because of it.
Yes, she is an idiot.
“she didn’t have a problem asking the campaign’s because she ‘likes to be agreeable’”
So,
a) She is OK doing immoral/unethical stuff “to be agreeable”
or
b) She doesn’t think asking a planted question was immoral/unethical
If (a), she is an idiot
If (b), and since she then went ahead and announced what she did as if it were a bad thing, she is an idiot.
Ergo, she is an idiot.
Nowhere did I read that she did it, and then “had a bout with her consciousness”, realized she did something unethical and announced it to world, and said sorry.
If you have cites that this is how it happened, then I may change my mind.
But, based on the linked story, she is an idiot.
<very broad brush>
Sometimes I think Republican politicians can get away with more ‘shit’ because Republican voters don’t seem to care as much about the morals of their guy, as long as they (the voters) get to have their guns, their SUVs and low taxes.
So, if a Republican kills a baby while driving high on crack
-
Reaction from Republicans “Meh, it’s not such a bad thing. Everybody has done some crack and driven a car. He just got caught. Give the guy a break. If this had happened to a Democrat, you guys wouldn’t have said anything.”
-
Reaction from Democrats “I can’t believe you guys don’t mind what he did, but, you do raise some good points. We’ll just forget about it”
If a Democrat is videotaped not helping a kitten cross the road
-
Reaction from Republicans “This guy is a disaster. How can you guys support someone who doesn’t want to help a kitten cross the road? We will keep bringing this up until he resigns or enough people get disgusted by him, so that he loses the next election”
-
Reaction from Democrats “He’s our guy, but yeah, what he did was disgusting, and we condemn it. Some of us think he should resign and some will vote against him in the next election.”
</very broad brush>
You may be consistent now, *after *the fact that you did not condemn Bush for his behavior, and the logical part of your brain will not allow you to condemn her behavior.
I think that if no Republican had been caught doing this before Hilary, your “logical self” would have no reason not to let your “political self” get all upset about this behavior.
Actually, I’ll vote for anyone who lets me shoot up SUVs belonging to either Repubs or Dems, with a special tax rebate bounty on Hummers. 
Gonna need some fairly serious ammo. And how do you dress out an SUV?
Along these lines, it is perhaps worth noting that The Nation which, to put it mildly is no friend of Bush or the Republicans in general (although admittedly probably not a huge fan of Hillary either), is proudly touting the fact that the college newspaper reporter at Grinnell who broke this story was a former Nation intern.
And what’s your evidence for this thought of yours?
I can give a counter-example. I defended Patrick Kennedy on these boards when he had his run-in with the Capitol police. There was no previous analgous Republican scandal; under your theory, my “political self” would have been perfectly free to attack Kennedy. I did not, though.
What’s your evidence supporting your contrary position?
My evidence comes from the same place you got yours when you started this thread claiming
Making WAGs about others’ responses to hypothetical situations seems to be in vogue.
You’ve lost me. I thought it was his weiner that got him into trouble back in the 90s (and beyond).
Sailboat