A sham of a sham. Same old, same old.

Susan…since you are there…have you heard of any other campaigns encouraging their staff or people who are already committed being asked to present questions? Or given Q&A policy sheets right before these open chat sessions? Do you know if people associated with campaigns have gone over to the other candidates Town Hall’s and posed questions?

I have not seen that at any event. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. It is more likely at a big event, I think. At the small ones, it is obvious who people are if you’re from the area. People who aren’t local would stick out like a sore thumb.

I am not surprised that this report came out of the Clinton campaign. Her events are incredibly scripted and staged, every detail of lighting, sound, and setup attended to. You have to run a gauntlet of staffers just to get in, all trying to get you to “sign in” on supporter sheets and slap a sticker on you. Last night there was a multi-candidate event where the organizers had to chase the Clinton people away from the door because they were trying to get everyone who came in to “sign in.” It’s just the typical aggressive stuff I’ve seen from her campaign since the summer.

So, am I surprised that they plant questions, too? No. It’s telling that she accused that guy in New Hampton of being a plant. My reaction at the time was “say, what”? Everybody asks tough questions in Iowa. Now it seems there is a reason why her mind would go there.

haircut, cleavage, and gender-card-crap

christ that is funny!

Way OT

Selise, Even though it’s soooo last week, want you to know I’ve come around to your way of thinking about the Phelps case. Didn’t know all of the facts.

Loathsome as they are, 1,000 feet away, down a hill at the back of the building, on public property and unseen to those at the funeral seems a more than fair protest distance. Particularly in light of the numerous communities that have banned protests at funerals setting 100ft limits. I also didn’t know the plaintiff never saw the signs until later on tv and that other courts had not permitted such suits to go forward.

Betcha this one will be set aside, or at least the damages drastically reduced. I have no sympathy for the defendants and hope this stops em (financially or otherwise).

We sure don’t need anything supporting “free speech zones” invisible to the issue at hand.

sunny – many thanks for the added info and details.

Teddy, we watched on CSPAN. My kid was there. I thought Obama was best speech, with Biden and Dodd both good. Clinton, Edwards and Richardson were forgettable. I sometimes wonder what the reportage would be if we didn’t let Balz and the Devil know who was speaking and just asked them to report on the content and delivery. The Very Serious Reporters are so mesmerized by frontrunner status, which they help to create.

Iowa really is a wild card, because of the disproportionate impact of rural counties, and the importance of campaigning on the ground. The coverage this weekend about Clinton’s campaign planting questions, after all that kerfuffle with the guy in New Hampton she accused of being a plant, is directly opposite to the storyline you want here. I am prepared to be surprised on caucus night. Balz, not so much. He’ll be in somebody’s Des Moines headquarters.

Susan…since you are there…have you heard of any other campaigns encouraging their staff or people who are already committed being askedvto present questions? Or given Q&A policy sheets right before these open chat sessions? Do you know if people associated with campaigns have gone over to the other candidates Town Hall’s and posed questions?

It just sees that this is Standard Operating Procedure. People committed to one candidate will attempt to flummox other candidates by asking a “hard question”, or make their own candidate sound good by asking a policy question that relates to an area that they are already knowlegeable about, but want to emphasise.

cinnamonape @ 211

Okay folks, can people tell me what is John Edwards current position on Palestine?

On Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, Gaza and continuing occupation of the West Bank?

On attacking Iran if they try and develop nuclear technology?

Whether he will pull all troops out of Iraq, or continue to use troops in as strike forces there? Will he keep large numbers of troops, bases and ships in the region prepared to attack Iran?

I’m just a little puzzled since he made this speech before the Herzliya Conference really doesn’t distinguish him much from any of the other candidates he is criticising for “beating the drums of war”….or sanctioning the Bush-Cheney regime to attack Iran.

I constantly see people here support Edwards as a “an anti-war candidate” and a progressive on foreign policy. Yet when it comes to Israel and Iran he seems to be a “hawk”….that fails to see that his own vote to support giving War Powers to Bush was based on this same twisted rationale.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

what does his website offer on these topics?

Same stuff. Leaving a brigade in Iraq to protect reconstruction workers and US assets like the embassy (though he says he will withdraw all combat brigades) but then he’ll place the Strike Battalions just across the border to deal with Al Qaeda and sectarian conflict. That sounds like they will return, and likely have to establish new bases in Iraq to succeed in these missions.

He says that he will be aggressive with Iran. A while he will “engage” Iran…he will only do so with people “who have met a number of criteria, such as recognition of the international rule of law, recognition of the rights of Jews and the state of Israel, and a commitment to the promise of diplomacy.”

He asserts that all our allies share out goal of preventing Iran from having nuclear technology. Last I heard most European States as well as China and Russia don’t have any issues with Iran having nuclear technology for Civilian Usage. They just wish for it to be constrained TO Civilian Use. Edwards seems to be ignorant of the actual “international rule of law” that relates to the Non-Proliferation Treaty allowing civilan usages (under supervision of the IAEA), and requiring those with nuclear technology to share with other signatories that knowledge. Israel isn’t even a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And nothing in the “international rule of law” allows “preemptive strikes” on sites that aren’t an immediate threat. Yet Edwards, like Clinton and the Republican candidates, refuses to “take anything off the table”. That would include a pre-emptive nuclear strike. And then there are those planned Kuwaiti bases. Is Edwards even aware that Kuwait has a 40% Shiite population or that Kuwait might not want the basesif he continues to hawk “aggressive engagement” with Iran?

Admittedly, despite his Herzliya speech he has recently suggested a much more moderate approach, taking “preemptive war” off the table. But he hasn’t stated clearly that he will not require the ridiculous preconditions that he has made elsewhere on his website. Still he seems to have made a significant policy change in the last few days

http://johnedwards.com/issues/…..-for-iran/

Still it seems that Edwards is the one who is averse to the “promise of diplomacy” by establishing a set of preconditions that includes issues that are totally unrelated to the issue of Irans use of nuclear technology….and are unlikely to assist in resolving the issue. It will simply make the Iranians say that Israel is in violation of all these international treaties and stipulate that their recognition is requisite on Israel giving up their nukes and leaving the occupied territories.

His approach is a no-gainer, and only pushes the rhetoric up a notch. In fact, it’s he US and the European powers that benefit from only having minimal preconditions (working within the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty) with Iran. Iran has always said that they are only ntent on gaining nuclear generated electric power. So with inspections and the right technology they can achieve this without establishing a heightened risk of nuclear proliferation.

I can’t find any statement besides his Herzliya Conference speech (where he even called Sharon “courageous”) regarding Israeli-Palestinian, or Israeli-Lebanese, or Israeli-Syrian issues. Here it seems that Israel can do no wrong and the Palesians and other players are always in the wrong. He places all the burden for change on the non-Israeli actors in the region.

Iowa really is a wild card, because of the disproportionate impact of rural counties, and the importance of campaigning on the ground. The coverage this weekend about Clinton’s campaign planting questions, after all that kerfuffle with the guy in New Hampton she accused of being a plant, is directly opposite to the storyline you want here. I am prepared to be surprised on caucus night. Balz, not so much. He’ll be in somebody’s Des Moines headquarters.

Suzanne @ 167

whereas i am just thankful that no one has that kinda power over me

Yes. I wonder why there are so many single women the campaigns are looking to woo.

That’s a great point.