For your favorite candidate, the hawkish and unelectable Hillary Clinton. How predictable you have become.

Not that it matters. But, if we are to move forward with any logical foundation, it should begin with this premise. Hillary Clinton has gotten huge sums of money from Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who is pushing Giuliani. Now that we have that straight, we can begin to meditate.

Go ahead, do a little research. Do you see anything that bothers you? http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0509-09.htm http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/

How do questions planted by a candidates own campaign and those posed by various special interest groups that show up at town hall meetings equate?

The student wanted to ask her own question, about how Hillary Clinton's energy plan compared to her rivals', and was told not to because Clinton wasn't prepared to answer that question (see CNN article; link below). This isn't just a matter of salting the audience with people ready to lob some softball questions that lead into a nicely prepared speech. This practice serves to replace legitimate questioning, even coopting the questioner herself in this case.

If Bush did it, we'd all be (rightly) thinking that it underscores his inability to think on his feet and general inarticulateness. When Clinton does it, it underscores her deviousness, her mania for control, her highhandedness, her risk aversion. Or at least her top staffers' perceptions of same. I don't want to tell you how to write your article, but I think this sort of "everybody knows pro wrestling is fake" analysis serves only to distract voters from what might be legitimate questions about this candidate's character and fitness for office.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/index.html?iref=newssearch

The rentboy also known as Jeff Gannon...

Not only a planted question, a planted questioner, with White House press corps credentials, provided to him...somehow.

That said, wasn't Hillary Clinton supposed to be smart? On top of things? Running a perfect campaign organization?

Didn't she try to claim she's better than all of that? Nice try...

Less than a month ago you guys smacked FEMA around for their fake news conference. Sen. Clinton gets caught doing the same thing, and all of a sudden, "well, it's all a part of the process. *Everyone* does it."

What bullshit. You go on and on and on about President Bush's not being accountable, and now you pull this. You really need to get rid of your search engine if you plan to continue in this vein.

And if everyone does it, why did Hillary's campaign go into its familiar denial mode rather than tell the truth? Could we please have a politician that would try that for a change.

You Libs catch Hillary in all these little falsehoods, shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, that's Hillary for you. But she only lies about the little stuff."

Do you really think that this habitual dishonesty won't carry over to the "big" stuff?

If so, would you mind giving me your bank account number so that I can wire you a deposed Nigerian prince's fortune minus a small administrative fee?

This is about Hillary and the sad truth is right before our eyes. She's loaded, entitled and inevitable. She seems to think she literally doesn't have to answer to any rank and file voter.

Iowa and New Hampshire Dems: Please don't be lulled into playing along with the next act in this bit of theater we used to call democracy: the part where you obediently vote for Hillary in spite of the fact that she's earned your mistrust and you know she's not the strongest candidate.Please, please please don't vote Clinton!

Why, Salon, why are you rolling over for this devious and untrustworthy woman? I don't want to have to explain why I was so outraged at Bushie for doing this when my nominee (she's not my nominee, but according to the media, I don't have any other choice so I ought to just accept it) is proving to be just as manipulative and difficult to nail down. And no... people wanting candidates to address their specific issues, that is democracy. Candidates manipulating audiences to keep unwanted questions out is Bush's democracy.

Salon, please, please, PLEASE drop the constant Hillary bias and call Hillary's actions what they are. An absurd perversion of democracy. And if you can find any other candidates that have planted audience members, then by all means provide us some evidence. Otherwise, this sort of pseudo journalism is really quite absurd, something on a par with Fox News

global warming. It's about friggin' time that candidates talked about the climate crisis.

I just renewed my sub to Salon, because it's my "most trusted source of news," besides the Daily Show and Lehrer(sp?). But I'm ready to agree that you guys have joined the MSM, in crowning HRC queen. What gives?

"Everybody does it," spoken by kids on a playground who collectively decide to eat their boogers all at once -- gross! -- is no excuse for a presidential candidate seeking to score her 40 seconds on the nightly news. She is a product of the politics of our time. Simply, a lobbyist-funded, poll-watching, no-conviction product. Sorry, but she's bought and paid for. Tell me how many donations she's gotten from $10-$50 donors in Middle America.

Please, Salon, give us coverage we can't get anywhere else. Tell us something we don't know. Hillary Clinton getting jiggy with her tour stops? That's not news. It's expected.

I'm voting D in '08, but tell me I don't have to be a part of this Bush/Clinton thing that's gone on for far too long.

This is newsworthy? People thought these events really consisted of randomly chosen citizens spontaneously expressing the issues they are concerned about.

There are such events, of course. The YearlyKos breakouts were like that. But the YearlyKos q&as were vetted through a committee. You've got to expect filters--and after 7 years of Bush not getting a question that his staff didn't write, fake news conference, and a fake washington correspondent, you'd think the smelling salts would not longer be necessary.