Hillary Clinton and the question of planting

What Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been accused of doing this last week at a forum in Newton, Iowa might not come as a shock to most people, even though it seems like a big issue. Clinton, who was speaking at the forum, accepted questions after her speech. But Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff , a student at Grinnell College, accused her campaign of “planting” questions, in the audience, in advance. “They were canned,” she said. In an interview with CNN, Gallo-Chasanoff revealed that when she asked the senior Clinton campaign staffer how it would work, she was told “Raise your hand and she’ll (Hillary) call on you.” Gallo-Chasanoff bluntly stated that she felt the entire questioning process had been stage managed, “There were 200 people there raising their hand to ask questions and I was one out of 4. Doesn’t seem random, exactly.”

First reported in Grinnell College’s “Scarlet and Black” by reporter Patrick Caldwell, the issue has now taken on national significance. It is not that people believed these things never happened, but in Iowa, where people believe in the workings of a democracy, where candidates are regularly asked spontaneous and at times provocative questions, this “staging” of questions comes as a bolt from the blue.

The whole point to having a “forum” is for audience members, who believe it is their birth right, living in a democracy, to ask questions of their political representatives. Once you take that away from them, they stop believing in the process. How many times in a lifetime does a college student from Iowa believe he or she will get a chance to ask a Presidential candidate a question? And when that one chance comes, if you do not let that student ask the question he or she wants to, and instead stage it by supplying your own questions, it is like unashamedly disillusioning your voters as to what a democracy is. If your voter base stops believing in the process, you’re fighting an uphill battle. This is exactly what Hillary Clinton’s campaign has managed to do.

Clinton’s campaign also gave her rival candidates ready fodder. As John Edwards told reporters in Des Moines, “People expect you to stand in front of them and answer their hard questions - and they expect it to be an honest process. What George Bush does is plant questions and exclude people from events, and I don't think that's what Democrats want to see in Iowa."

A Clinton spokesperson has said that "this (the planting of questions in the audience) is not standard policy and will not be repeated again." Why then was it used in this instance, particularly in Iowa, an extremely important state in the primaries and with a deep tradition of democracy, town hall meets and caucuses? It is like committing hara-kiri, in a state quite vital to each candidate’s interests. Clinton aides have acknowledged planting the question, but at the same time have denied Clinton knew about it. Does that make a difference? Whether or not Clinton knew about a question hardly matters because it is patently obvious that her staffers would make sure a “planted” question would pertain to issues she was comfortable with. Clinton was obviously comfortable with the climate change issue and that is what she got asked a question about.

Clinton can do herself a favor by refraining from resorting to such tactics, especially in states like Iowa. The national primary race might not necessarily be affected by a one-off Clinton campaign faux-pas, but in Iowa this could mean the difference between winning and losing. A recent poll shows that in the Democratic race in Iowa, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards were in a near tie — with 22 and 23 percent respectively — and catching up to Hillary Clinton, who polled at 25 percent.

Rudy Giuliani and the one Right way

26 years ago, Ronald Reagan set a precedent for the Republican Party. In identifying with and relating to the religious conservative movement during his 1981 Presidential campaign, Reagan made a choice for the future of the Republican Party and the effect that evangelicals would have on Republican stances and policies. Members and election candidates especially, ever since, have necessarily, keeping this constituency in mind, had to “tune up” their conservatism, to a degree satisfying the evangelical voter base.

It is no different in the current run up to the 2008 Presidential Elections. While the Democratic Party candidates try to outdo each other as being more liberal, this pales in comparison to the extent that the Republican Party candidates attempt to establish themselves as being more conservative than the other. The importance of proclaiming a conservative stance, especially to the right religious voter base, has only grown in recent years. Each of the Republican candidates seems to believe that the only way to gain this evangelical support, without which a White House run is considered near impossible, is to portray themselves as being more religious and more conservative than all the other candidates.

While this appears to be easier for some of the candidates, frontrunner Rudy Giuliani seems to be having a tough time convincing the evangelical voter base that he is indeed conservative. Ever since he announced his candidacy, his conservative credentials have been questioned. While most people typically point out his alleged liberal stances on gay rights and abortion, many others feel his advocacy of gun control during his mayoral term in New York and his support for Mario Cuomo as Governor of New York take away from his professed conservatism.

In April of this year, during an interview with CNN, Giuliani was asked about his views on abortion and, a video clip dating from 1989 circulating on the internet that showed him making the statement, “There must be public funding for abortions for poor women. We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources.” In response, Giuliani told CNN, “Abortion is wrong, abortion shouldn’t happen. Personally you should counsel people to that extent.” At the same time, he also made it clear that he believed “ultimately abortion’s a constitutional right and therefore if it’s a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure that people are protected.” He stated also his belief that there should be public funding for abortion, ““if it would deprive someone of a constitutional right, if that’s the status of the law.”

Such views have been considered liberal by many observers and they are causing Giuliani to make an extra effort to convey to his evangelical voter base that although he might support the law, as in the case of abortions, his views remain conservative. Frequently attacked by Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, as to his lack of conservatism or pro-liberal policy choices in some instances, on the Republican candidates’ debates, Giuliani has been pushed into a corner. While not all Republican candidates have completely clean conservative pasts, as regards their Senate votes and policy stances, none seem to be taken to task on the matter more than Giuliani.

In early October, while campaigning in New Hampshire, Giuliani was asked his views on the evangelical voter base and what he thought their influence would be. In response Giuliani said, “You know when we’ll find out who is going to be influential in this year’s election?, When it’s over.” Giuliani made it clear that he feared the Democrats more than he feared any voter base of his and in what can be seen now, as an early indication of what he would tell his religious conservative base at the Values Voters summit in Washington later on in the month, declared that ““I have great respect for religion, for religious freedom and religious toleration. I think people of faith make a tremendous contribution to this country. And I ask them maybe, maybe people of faith can respect someone who is honest with them. With me, you know what you’re going to get.”

His appearance at the Values Voters summit was thought to be crucial, by most accounts, with many people calling it a make or break for his candidacy. In his 40 minute speech to the religious conservative audience gathered in Washington, Giuliani bluntly told them that “you have nothing to fear from me.” He allayed fears in several voters who earlier said they would vote for an independent candidate should Giuliani get the Republican nomination. His unequivocal stance on religion and God, saying “this is at the core of who I am” seemed to assure people that he would be true to his word and be conservative in his policy making. He vowed also to nominate judges with conservative judicial philosophies, cut down on abortions, oppose gay rights and be fiscally conservative.

This appears to have been a good beginning, though the religious conservative base would surely want more in the way of assurances and promises as to his being strictly conservative during his Presidential term. It is still believed that Giuliani is a long shot at winning the primaries in Iowa and South Carolina and that unless he can dramatically sway a large number of the evangelical voter base to his side, it might not be possible for him to win the Republican nomination.

This morning he received a significant boost to that end when televangelist Pat Robertson officially endorsed Giuliani and his campaign. This is considered a major coup for Giuliani’s campaign and should go a long way toward helping his chances in the Republican primaries, especially with the religious conservative voter base, with which Robertson has a considerable influence.