Perhaps-but nothing like Russert.

OswaldTheOsprey

Someone get me in at the next debate. I'd love to have someone tell me what to ask her. Then it'd be even more shocking when I said "Senator Clinton, is it true you called someone a "Fucking Jew Bastard? Also have any tips on how to make a buck on cattle futures? How much would I have to donate to your campaign to have my friend pardoned from prison? P.S. I love how you get elected as a senator of my great state, and then go off campaigning, not fulfilling your duties as senator."

Damn I could go on and on and on and on. I'd better stop before my blood pressure skyrockets.

Wigs, how did you get to be so Witty? That was classic hahaha. I wish I could come up with your stuff.

Ok, as I said above, I don't put it past her (or ANY other campaign) to plant questions. I'm talking about the source of the criticizm. The link in the original topic was supported by what a single girl said on her MySpace page.

This link (the one above) actually has an admission by her campaign to planting the queation, so this is legitimate.


This link said the man was ASKED to ask a certain question. He was not a plant... he was a request.


This is a blog and is therefore as reputable as the dump I just took.


Again, they were SUGGESTED a question, not planted.


CNN was responsible for the FIRST story.

The REST were all suggested by Clinton staffers.

Your premise that CNN is biased toward Clinton is flawed. You would be accurate is assuming that people who work for Clinton are biased toward her... but that wouldn't be any radical realization by ANY means.


ALL candidates have a vetting proccess for anyone who wants to ask questions. Hell, even FEMA does. But in the scheme of things I care more about my federal agencies (that are responcible for the safety of Americans) planting questions than stupid presidental candidates... but maybe my priorites are misplaced.


Yeah, I'm more concerned about the people that did EXACTLY what they were told than the candidates that suggested people ask a certain question.

I would begin: "Sen. Clinton, it was suggested that I ask you which piece fo jewlrey you prefer, but rather than do a diservice to Democracy itself and actually *DO* that, I would like to talk to you about your recent Iran vote."

I mean, if I could ask that without throwing up from nervousness and all.

The media has a very silly, imho, view of what it means to be "tough" on a candidate.

When an interviewer is being "tough", it usually means they are playing some stupid game of gotcha:
"15 years ago last Tuesday you said 'x' and now you're saying 'y'. Why the flip-flop?"

Or they insist that the politician answer a complex question "yes or no."

What I'd just love to see is some day a media figure say something like: "You claim that x is true, but the facts are y. Why do you insist on x?"