New Clinton Questions? [Updated]

As Hillary Clinton aims to regain momentum in tonight's presidential debate, new videos have surfaced on YouTube with young voters asking her questions that are similar to the fake question posed by a Grinnell college student last week.

There is no direct indication that the new footage, apparently taken from an October 16 event at a high school in Salem, New Hampshire, demonstrates any concerted effort by the Clinton Campaign to plant questions. (The campaign's media and Internet staff did not immediately respond to requests from The Nation for comment.) But in an era where web videos can spread fast and shape the views of activists and voters, the clips may feed the narrative that Clinton's tightly-run campaign is shielding her from voters' scrutiny.

One clip features a young woman wearing a Hillary sticker, who notes she is at her second Clinton event of the day before asking her question. "As an Iranian American female, I would like to know your take on the stance you would have in your administration with dealing with Iran, and, what you think we could do to help, as you said, change America's reputation in the world, and how we can better improve relations and prevent a war or military confrontation," she said. [Update: The young woman, Roya Soleimani, says the question was completely authentic.]

Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, the Grinnell student who read a planted question provided by the Clinton Campaign last week, said, "As a young person I'm worried about the long term effects of global warming, how does your plan combat climate change?" Gallo-Chasanoff later told reporters that a Clinton staffer had a printed list of about eight questions, with one "planned specifically for a college student." She added, "It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question."

The other YouTube clip, which appears to be from the same Salem event, features a young woman asking about Social Security. [Updated: The student later told The Nation that her question "absolutely was not planted."] "Hi, my question is about Social Security reform, and I'm glad you mentioned it today. And, I'm asking because I feel like my generation has given up hope that we're going to receive a Social Security check when we retire. So, with the current state. And I want to know, as president, what's your specific plan to fix Social Security for my generation? Specifically, would you protect the Social Security trust fund, that's running a surplus right now– but right now Congress can dip its hand into it and spend on other programs that has nothing to do with Social Security." The YouTube clips, which were posted Wednesday night under the account meldoecase, include Clinton's answers to both questions.

One way for the Clinton Campaign to address questions about the new clips would be to release the original list of fake questions. Then voters could see for themselves what other topics were proposed for planting, and confirm that last week's plants were an isolated incident.

UPDATE: The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder responds:

...Sounds like a planted question, indeed. But it probably wasn't a Clinton plant -- the question was probably crafted by one of the innumerable outside interest groups who are funding issue advocacy campaigns in the early primary and caucus states...

UPDATE 2: On Thursday afternoon I spoke by phone with both of the young women in the YouTube clips.

Roya Soleimani, who asked about Iran, called me after speaking with Clinton's New Hampshire staff today. She said her question was authentic and she attended several campaign events in New Hampshire as a volunteer for a project associated with ABC News. "It was a completely self-generated question because I wanted to know what her position on foreign policy with Iran," she said, adding "I can unequivocally say that I had not discussed the question, or any of my policy areas of interest with the campaign in advance." Soleimani, a 22-year-old events manager in Washington, D.C., says she currently supports Clinton.

Jo Jensen says she did not speak with any Clinton staff today, but there is a reason her question looked practiced. As Executive Director for Students for Saving Social Security, Jensen has personally asked six candidates about Social Security. The 22-year-old posts the results at the organization's YouTube account, SecureOurFuture, which currently features the question from the Salem event. Jensen, who is undecided, says her question "absolutely was not planted." She added that she was excited about the Salem Town Hall. "The Clinton event was the first one they let me in to. Usually they're invite-only and they don't have students that are allowed to go," she said.

In this case, the questions raised on YouTube were largely answered on YouTube. But Clinton's rivals think they can squeeze more out of the story. At 2:30pm today, the Edwards Campaign sent out a press release announcing a new web campaign, PlantsforHillary.com, inviting web activists to "plant" their own questions for Clinton, and a new YouTube attack ad about the "Politics of Planting." Today the Obama Campaign piled on that point, saying Clinton's immigration record makes it "easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them." As I previously noted in this space, Clinton does deserve credit for personally denouncing the fake questions. Tonight, all eyes will be on her to see how she answers the real ones.

Comments (12)

1. she's only lip-synching [youtube.com], anyways.......

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/15/2007 @ 01:21am

2. Something was funny in Hillary's breakout at the YearlyKos Convention last August. Peter Daou selected every questioner, there was only time for four questions, he called on each questioner by name. I felt that the selections had been pre-arranged. Hillary had arrived with Mark Penn, Daou and Howard Wolfson, who sat at the table in front of us, I couldn't understand why they were there (except for Peter who introduced her) except to provide protection? It was weird.

   Posted by candot at 11/15/2007 @ 02:23am

3. Well, pretty much ado about nothing. Licenses for some Haitians or other undoc Macacas. This is non-issue compared to healthcare. read this.

   ----------

   Clinton: No On Illegal Immigrants Licenses After Weeks Of Pressure, Presidential Hopeful Comes Out Against Driver's Licenses For Undocumented Immigrants Comments 73 WASHINGTON, Nov. 14, 2007

   Candidates' Missteps Magnified

   (AP) Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday came out against granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, after weeks of pressure in the presidential race to take a position on a now-failed ID plan from her home state governor

   Posted by HelenDAO at 11/15/2007 @ 02:34am

4. Posted by HELENDAO 11/15/2007 @ 02:34am

   HELEN's right....after Spitzer dropped the program due to its unpopularity, and the polls showed 80% of America opposed it...

   Hillary firmly and bravely came out against it last night!

   Posted by Mask at 11/15/2007 @ 09:09am

5. Licenses for some Haitians or other undoc Macacas

   Posted by HELENDAO 11/15/2007 @ 02:34am

   macacas, huh?

   i bet you don't sleep well at night.

   BOO!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/15/2007 @ 09:31am

6. FZ

   I think that the "holier-than-thou" crowd sleeps very well. After all, they are full of themselves and legends in their own minds. TEnds to lead to immense self-satisfaction I think.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 11/15/2007 @ 09:40am

7. Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/15/2007 @ 12:08pm Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/15/2007 @ 12:11pm

   "It's the Media's fault!" "It's the Media's fault!"

   Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/15/2007 @ 12:14pm

   "No big deal. Now, change the subject!"

   Posted by Mask at 11/15/2007 @ 12:32pm

8. Did you see Gail Collins' column today? If that isn't paid spin and damage control, I don't know what is. Posted by ZERO 11/15/2007 @ 11:16am | ignore this person

   Hllitary Industrial Complex: The thriving industry devoted to persuading Democratic primary voters to either lower their moral, ethical and standards or, failing that, to look at that shiny thing, over there.

   Posted by haskells at 11/15/2007 @ 1:19pm

9. I have an open question about the subtext to this whole issue.

   Where do we get the underlying assumption that the best indication of truth on any topic is momentary and spontaneous? Granted there's a certain zen logic to the spontaneous reaction being authentic, but only if you've achieved some mastery - the knee-jerk insult or brawl is hardly valuable just because it is "spontaneous".

   Look at the nature of information, of discursive truth, and how society handles it. Articles in magazines and newspapers are edited. Presentations before a business audience are rehearsed so that you can sell your idea. Responses to job-interview questions are often practiced. The language of science is rigorously reviewed and revised before publication. Sermons are scripted. The language of literature and poetry involves careful craft and thought. And of course law and legislation is tediously composed; imagine if we had to rely on legislative speeches to understand what the law was.

   I've heard a lot of stupidity barked out on barstools or poured into blogs off the top of a person's head. We've also all been in the conversations that get bogged down by one or two curmudgeonly voices. Certainly thinking on one's feet is valuable and necessary; perhaps my question is tinted with my own experience of generally being more successful elucidating a complex idea with some written exploration or outline vs. trying to "wing it".

   Given the fallacious and sound-bite pitfalls of conversation (think talk radio), and the overall way that real informational value is created and propagated in our culture, where do we get this notion that the spontaneous discussion is the measure of authenticity? Why is "preparation" on a topic seen as a negative? Is it really possible that any politician could run without -being- (vs. seeming) prepared? And can't one politician tell the truth in a rehearsed setting, and another one lie or exaggerate off the cuff?

   Posted by ccorbell at 11/15/2007 @ 4:00pm

10. Where do we get the underlying assumption that the best indication of truth on any topic is momentary and spontaneous?----Posted by CCORBELL 11/15/2007 @ 4:00pm

    Don't know, but CCORBELL is a woman...and her husband comes home late one night and she says "WHERE have you been?!?!??!"...

    and he takes a few moments to phrase a proper and nuanced response....

    I'm KINDA betting she wouldn't accept his version of "Hillary-speak"!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/15/2007 @ 4:35pm

11. I had to come back to this one for one more post. I've discussed this issue on another forum and come to a startling conclusion:

    This was not planting!

    It was coaching. There's a huge difference. "Planting" would imply that someone from Hillary's campaign was pretending to be an anonymous member of the public. The young woman who asked the question was not a part of the campaign and was not pretending to be something she wasn't (unless perhaps she was a student journalist fishing for an exposé and not really an undecided voter). Yes, she talked to some people from the campaign beforehand (ostensibly as a supporter?) and they -coached- her, suggesting a question she could ask in order to improve the interchange for the candidate, but the student was completely free to say no or to ask a different question when called upon.

    That just isn't planting! It's conversation and an attempt to massage a public event to support the campaign, which all campaigns do. A plant would be an actual campaign member under cover - like the FEMA employees pretending to be journalists. Again we see Hillary's opponents all too eager to exaggerate, and the media (including the Nation in this case) so hungry for any headline that it plays along and gets taken in by the hype.

    Posted by ccorbell at 11/16/2007 @ 2:45pm

12. The questions which were asked, whether prearranged or not, were on important issues -- not the softball type of questions used by George W. Bush to take the pressure off during his press conferences. In the last election as well as during the time Bush has occupied the office of the president, Democrat sessions have been relatively open to anyone while Bush sessions had a restricted audience. Attendees at Bush sessions were scrutinized before the session and attended only with a ticket. Protesters along the route of the president were sometimes arrested and then released the next day. Whether prearranged or not, the questions posed to Hillary addressed major issues in the campaign, and did not distract the session into some kind of intended embarassment of the candidate.

    Posted by drd3 at 11/17/2007 @ 5:38pm