CNN Plants Question for Hillary – Where’s the OUTRAGE?

So, Hillary says it won’t happen again.  Now she has CNN staff shilling for her campaign.  The following is being reported by Marc Ambinder at http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php

“CNN ran out of time and used me to “close” the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, “you gave our school a bad reputation.’ Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That’s what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That’s politics; that’s reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America–and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question.”

Marc’s article includes the YouTube link to Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred “diamonds or pearls”.

The last question of the Navada debate, to Hillary, diamonds or pearls? is now being reported to have been a CNN planted question.  And, get this, CNN broke their promise to let the lady that was told to ask the question a chance to ask her own question, one about Yucca Mountain.  Now I don’t believe CNN is smart enough to plant that type of question.  My quess is that a Clinton staffer directed someone in CNN (Clinton News Network) to ask the question.  It was just too specific, and timed just right, at the end of the debate.

Daily Kos poll on the Las Vegas Democratic Candidates debate

Daily Kos poll on the Las Vegas Democratic Candidates debate

If there were any doubts that going negative on Hillary is effective, look at the polling results from Kos.  When Kucinich looks better to liberals than Hillary, she is in real trouble.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/15/22252/245

Joe Biden	1114 votes – 9 %
Hillary Clinton	2491 votes – 20 %
Chris Dodd	389 votes – 3 %
John Edwards	1918 votes – 15 %
Dennis Kucinich	2746 votes – 22 %
Barack Obama	2945 votes – 24 %
Bill Richardson	401 votes – 3 %
12004 Total Votes

Obama, Edwards Attack On Hillary Effective

Many have questioned if going negative would have any effect on Hillary’s apparent nomination.  Dick Morris, who probably knows Hillary and Bill better than just about any other pundit, has this to say, “Months ago, Edwards was ahead, but Clinton had developed an increasing lead – until her recent dismal debate performance sent her fortunes diving.”  http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/11/15/iowa_and_beyond_no_safe_bets_in_08

Now don’t thing for a minute that the result is all because of Obama and Edwards attacks, it isn’t, and here’s why.  Obama’s attacks are never carried to the degree needed to do lasting harm.  He just does not have the political killer instinct.  Edwards attacks are more agressive, and he is relentless.  But Edwards attacks from the trail lawyer angle, trying to prove the other person is guilty by pointing out negatives.  Neither has the unrelenting, attack from all sides and angles, get dirty killer instinct of successful politicians.

Many you have wondered, where are the “swift-boat” attacks on Hillary?  It’s too early.  Let Obama and Edwards do the light weight attacking and see if she survives Iowa.  Swift-boating won’t come until Hillary is the clear nomination.  Ads are being developed as we speak, based in part on some cleaver negative polling in Iowa to see what grabs the public.