I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

If you work for Hillary Clinton and your candidate’s ahead in the polls, your job is to avoid unpleasant surprises – even if it means planting questions in the audience.  Last week, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old college student, attended a campaign event in Iowa – where a Hillary staffer asked if she wanted to ask a question.  When Muriel told them what question she wanted to ask, they said “no” and gave her a typed query – one that would not make news, and allow Clinton to repeat her campaign talking points.  I got to ask Hillary a tough question at the Yearly Kos Convention in August – but Clinton has done her best to avoid such unscripted moments, as her “inevitable” nomination rolls along.  After Muriel got some media attention, the Hillary camp asked her to stop talking to the press.  Kind of reminds me how two Clinton staffers confronted me after my exchange with the Senator.  Hillary’s campaign is running a tight ship, but planting questions to control the message speaks volumes about a candidate we simply can’t trust.

I really feel for how Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff went along with what the Clinton camp asked her to do.  Ten years ago, I was a politically minded college student myself – eager to attend events and talk to high-level politicians.  Right now, candidates in Iowa are swarming the state to win the presidential caucus in January – so being a college student in Iowa is very exciting.  Muriel attended a Clinton campaign event because she wanted to learn more, and was thrilled to be asked if she had a question.  “I thought it was a great opportunity,” she told CNN.  “[Hillary] might be our next President.”

But when the camp asked Muriel before the event what her question would be, they were not happy with what she had in mind.  She wanted to ask how Hillary’s energy plan compared with what her Democratic opponents’ had to offer, but an aide said he wasn’t sure if Clinton knew enough about the other plans to give an intelligent response.  So he pulled out an official binder, tore out a page with 8 pre-written questions – and told her to ask the one that was under the heading “college student.”

The question they told her to ask – “As a young person, I am concerned about the long-term effects of global warming.  How does your plan combat climate change?” – was a softball question that allowed Hillary to give a detailed response about her platform.  Politicians don’t like questions that make the news, because it takes them off-message.  They would rather repeat their talking points that reporters will jot down, and avoid anything that could shift the outcome of an election.  The question they gave Muriel allowed Clinton to do just that.

In fact, it sounds a lot like the first question Hillary got asked at the Yearly Kos Convention that I attended.  That question – “How will you reform No Child Left Behind?” – allowed Hillary to give a long-winded nine-minute response in a break-out session where only 30 minutes were allotted to take questions.  I don’t know if that first questioner was a plant, but it certainly ate up time where Clinton could have been grilled about Iraq in a crowd skeptical about her presidential campaign.

My question at the session put Hillary on the defensive – where she got stuck defending the less pleasant parts of her husband’s Administration (Defense of Marriage Act, Telecommunications Act, NAFTA and Welfare Repeal), and quite a few media outlets picked up on it.  But it’s almost as if I got called on by accident.  Out of five lucky people who asked questions, I was the only one her Internet Director did not call out by name – as he instead addressed me as “the man in the red shirt.”

As Muriel left the Iowa campaign event, she overheard another attendee say that he too had been told by the Clinton camp to ask Hillary his question.  Only four people (out of 200) at the event got to ask the Senator a question, so Hillary’s campaign managed to plant half of the questions – as the national press corps simply looked on.  “The question-and-answer sessions in Iowa are really important,” said Muriel in a later CNN interview.  “But if you’re planting the questions in advance, that takes the voters out of it.”

Muriel said in the interview that she didn’t know if other campaigns pursue such tactics, but that if one does it the others probably do as well.  The Obama, Edwards and Richardson campaigns have all denied planting questions at their events – and I believe them.  At Yearly Kos, Hillary had her Internet Director call on people during the break-out session – whereas the other candidates blindly called on audience members.  John Edwards even allowed follow-up questions.

It’s an unfortunate part of this year’s primary season as Hillary plows ahead with the Democratic nomination under the guise of “inevitability.”  If she can avoid unscripted moments, she will be the next President because no unpleasant surprises means no momentum change for the other candidates.  Her campaign juggernaut is a machine that simply moves in cruise control – even if it means planting questions in the audience.

After they got busted in Iowa, the Clinton camp asked Muriel to keep things quiet.  When she told a college reporter about the planted question, Muriel asked as a courtesy that he notify the Clinton campaign – proving that she does not have an axe to grind with anyone involved.  Suddenly she got a call from Hillary’s Iowa Director of Publicity.  While they politely confirmed Muriel’s account of what happened, their last comment to her was “the campaign would like you to not talk about it anymore.”

Sounds like the contact I had with Hillary’s campaign after my question at Yearly Kos.  On the final night, as the delegates were all drinking at 1:00 a.m. to celebrate a great Convention, I suddenly got approached by two Hillary staffers – a man and a woman – who started a “good-cop, bad-cop” confrontation with me.  The woman thanked me profusely for “asking such a smart question,” while the guy said, “I’m not going to leave you alone until you become a Hillary supporter.”

Needless to say, he was not successful — and after we talked for about five minutes, he yelled “you’re helping the terrorists” and they both walked away.  Apparently, getting unscripted moments is just too much to handle for Hillary Clinton – as her campaign machine chugs along to win the nomination.  Question-and-answer sessions that give the appearance of “dialogue” are treated like TV commercials, and people who break through their machine are “problems” that need to be dealt with.  That is not the type of democracy that we deserve — and are brought up to respect.

EDITOR’S NOTE: To read Paul Hogarth’s self-serving advice on how to ask a tough question, check out this article.  Send feedback to [email protected]

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily.

In the presidential campaign, we’ve heard a lot about “experience” (a plus for Hillary Clinton), “change” (Barack Obama’s strongest point), and “electability” (which helps John Edwards.)  But one factor that has yet to play a role is “trust.”  It is one thing to hear what a candidate has to say, but how can progressives know who will stick to their guns when the right-wing noise machine attacks – and who will capitulate, triangulate and take our support for granted?  If “trust” becomes a major concern for Democratic primary voters, Hillary Clinton could be in trouble.  And while a candidate can tout their resume to boost “experience,” their platform to project “change,” and good poll numbers to push “electability,” there isn’t much they can do about the fact that voters don’t trust them.  Especially when you’ve been in the public eye for 15 years.

Lately, I’ve heard some argue that there is little difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues.  They both oppose gay marriage, but support civil unions.  They both promise universal health care, but Obama says he’ll do it by the end of his first term and Hillary at the end of her second.  They both say they’ll get us out of Iraq, but have been vague about residual forces – and were both wishy-washy on the question of de-funding the War after Congress could not muster enough votes for an actual deadline.

The real difference, however, is on trust.  Obama has always been against the War in Iraq since before it started, while Hillary voted for it, refuses to apologize for that vote, and never supported withdrawal until right before the 2006 elections.  It’s not enough just to hear what each of the candidates have to say.  Where they stood at moments when it was not popular tells you whether you can trust the candidate to stand on principle.

As a progressive, I don’t trust Hillary Clinton because her husband repeatedly betrayed the Left whenever it was convenient.  The last Clinton Administration brought us Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, NAFTA, the Defense of Marriage Act, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Helms-Burton bill, and Welfare Repeal.  Hillary could have shaped her own path as a U.S. Senator, but Iraq has only solidified the mistrust that began in the 1990’s.

Hillary’s top campaign pollster, Mark Penn – who helped engineer Bill Clinton’s anti-progressive campaign in 1996 of triangulation – is the C.E.O. of a union busting firm.  And while Hillary loves to say she worked at the Children’s Defense Fund for a year, the vast majority of her legal career included representing Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods and other corporate interests.  

But to get the nomination, Obama still has a way to go on the question of trust.  As I’ve argued before, Obama is in a better position than Clinton or Edwards to seize the mantle on Iraq because he was always against the War.  All other things being equal, primary voters should trust him more on this question.  But having been right in 2002 is not enough; Obama needs to set himself apart from Clinton regarding what we do today.

And it looks like Obama is finally getting the message.  In a major speech yesterday, he broke from his prior position of waffling on how to get us out of Iraq.  “The best way to protect our security,” he said, “and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now.  If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.”

John Edwards has successfully gotten anti-war progressives to trust him on Iraq – even though (like Clinton) he voted for the War in 2002.  That’s because he firmly repudiated his prior position, repeatedly apologized, and has taken a more consistent stance on getting out than either of the two major candidates.  It’s ironic that Obama, who should have sewed up the progressive vote by now, has actually lost ground because Edwards has given the Left more reason to support him.

In the absence of knowing much about a candidate like Edwards or Obama, trust can go a long way.  But when a candidate like Clinton is a known quantity – and has given voters 15 years reasons not to trust her – it will be very difficult to convince them otherwise.  

“If Democratic voters pick experience,” said pollster Mark Blumenthal at Yearly Kos, “Hillary Clinton wins. But if they pick trust as the most important issue, she could lose.”

Because Hillary has the advantage on “experience,” her campaign has tried to confront two other issues where she has a perceived weakness – “change” and “electability.”  She argues that her 35 years of experience has made her the “most effective agent of change,” and recent poll numbers show that she could beat any Republican nominee.

A slick re-invention campaign can persuade voters who want change that you are that candidate, and Democrats who want to win are swayed by poll results that objectively show you’re electable.  But “trust” is a more powerful gut feeling that voters have, and I don’t see what Hillary could do if it becomes a theme in the race.

A recent New York Times poll found that voters – on both the left and the right – don’t trust Hillary.  “This wouldn’t be that big a deal if it weren’t for the last seven years,” said columnist Andrew Sullivan.  “But we are at war; and we have lost trust – with very good reason – in the leaders of this war.  One reason why the current debate about what to do next in Iraq has become so bitter so quickly is precisely because none of us can trust what the government says or its motives.”

Voters think, but first they feel.  And before they can objectively conclude that your campaign platform and your experience is worth supporting, they must first have that gut feeling that you are telling them the truth.  If Hillary Clinton does not get challenged on “trust” during the primaries, Democrats run the risk of having the Republican nominee attack her on this in the fall.  And they will regret it later.

Send feedback to [email protected]

The question I asked Hillary Clinton at the Yearly Kos Convention has generated lots of attention.  I was moved by the number of people who approached me and said, “great question!” and now it’s starting to change the narrative of Hillary’s campaign in the mainstream media – as evidenced by this AP article.

But I’m not asking people to thank me. I just did what anyone else is capable of doing – holding politicians accountable by asking a very pointed question that drives the message home. My question was no accident. It was well-prepared, and I put a lot of thought into it. You can too if you take the following advice:

Before I begin, I want to emphasize that this is not about “catching” Hillary in more embarrassing situations. All politicians should be held accountable by asking tough questions, and Hillary supporters are free to follow my advice when you ask Barack Obama or John Edwards. If they can’t heat from us, they don’t deserve to be nominated. This advice is appropriate for all politicians if you ever get the chance to ask them a question.

(1) Do your homework: This may sound obvious, but having a well-prepared question written in advance allows you to think it through and be confident when you ask it. The opportunity to ask Hillary Clinton — or George Bush or Bill Clinton or Al Gore — doesn’t happen every day and you should never walk into the room without having memorized the question you are planning to ask. I had worked on my question for 2 days. Do your research. Think it through. Plan it carefully.

(2) Never ask an open-ended question: Politicians are trained to “stay on message.” That means they answer the question they want to give. It is infuriating to hear politicians get asked a question and then proceed on a long-winded stump speech with their standard sound-bites, but that’s because they have a particular message they want to get out. Questions that force them to answer “yes-or-no” require them to take a particular stand and make the news, when they would rather the news be a regurgitation of their three-point message.

(3) Avoid follow-up questions: Usually you need to ask follow-up questions to really get the politician on record – but chances are you will not have that opportunity. I certainly didn’t when I asked Hillary Clinton, but I was told that John Edwards allowed follow-up questions during his break-out session. If you can get away with it, do it – but always plan your question around the assumption that you won’t. Some Hillary supporters are mad at me that I asked a four-part question (which was “rude”), to which I say – grow up. If I could have broken up the question into four follow-ups, I would have.

(4) Ask an original question they don’t expect: Politicians and their consultants spend hours obsessing over the perfect sound-bite to answer tough questions they expect to receive. I could have asked Hillary about Iraq – and someone else should – but unless my question had been brilliant, she probably would have had a pre-arranged sound bite. Think through about an issue that has not been a part of the campaign, but don’t make it so esoteric that the media (or the audience) won’t understand what you’re talking about.

(5) Avoid sounding mean and shrill: Coming off as angry or hostile to the candidate is self-defeating. You will only please people who already don’t like the candidate, and it will alienate the others. Be polite and respectful. I started my question by thanking Hillary Clinton for her willingness to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because I believe that we should give credit where credit is due (incidentally, it’s also why I clapped when Hillary said good things.) It also makes your question more effective because you don’t sound like a jerk.

(6) Find a good strategic place to sit: The most brilliant, well-thought out question in the world will be useless if you never get called on. When I walked into the Hillary session and saw the number of people, I doubted I would get the opportunity. Arrive early so you can get a good seat. If you can’t be in the first three rows directly in front of the podium, get a seat next to the aisle – which is what I did.

(7) Wear a bright shirt: While I certainly didn’t plan this part, I was wearing a bright red shirt when I went to her break-out session. Peter Daou (her Internet Director) called on me as “the man in the red shirt” when he had called on all the other questioners by their first name. I honestly believe that it’s the reason I was called on. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I’m serious. It works.

I’m not giving this advice because I seriously doubt the Clinton campaign will ever give me the chance to ask another question. I just believe that as bloggers, we have a right to have our voices heard and our questions answered. We may have some “access,” but we certainly don’t have the millions of dollars to go to an elite fundraiser where you can probe a candidate with follow-up questions. Even at most fundraisers, you don’t even get those chances. We’re also not media celebrities who can get an hour-long interview with the candidate.

Finally, if you get the chance to go to an event where the candidate will be taking questions, send me an e-mail at [email protected]. While I would much rather have John Edwards or Barack Obama win the nomination than Hillary Clinton, I have not chosen a candidate – although I’m leaning towards Edwards. I believe all candidates should earn our support.

It’s probably too early to fully process all that went on this weekend at Yearly Kos.  Plus, I have to admit that I am exhausted, having stayed up to the wee hours of the morning talking with some amazing individuals, including a number of the tight knit California blogosphere.  It is incredible to me that it was only at last year’s Yearly Kos that I met Todd Beeton and David Dayen.  We have come so far since then, both in terms of friendships, accomplishments and the deployment of many innovative things here at Calitics.  The whole ActBlue staff individually told Brian that they use his Calitics ActBlue page YouTube video in trainings.  I lost track of the number of people that were thrilled to hear that Calitics is now available in Spanish.

I keep trying to start a coherent and hopefully insightful post, but I am just so fried.  However, you really do need to see this SF Chron article from yesterday titled “Local blogs are key to future of politics“:

Tom Mattzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org, the 3.3 million-member online activism hub, said smaller bloggers “are going to gain a lot more importance in the upcoming elections.”

Here’s how: A blogger writes about something going on in his community, say plans for a local development to be built on toxic ground – the kind of story many large newspapers rarely break nowadays. Residents start complaining about the issue at local meetings. Soon, the buzz generated causes the local press and perhaps other larger bloggers to pick up on the issue, and the government is forced to respond to their inquiries.

Something similar happened in the Bay Area. In October 2005, Paul Delehanty, an Oakland resident better known in the liberal blogosphere as Kid Oakland, rallied local progressives to head east through the Caldecott Tunnel to unseat then-Rep. Richard Pombo. Environmentalists had railed against the Tracy Republican for years for his anti-environmental views but had not been able to unseat him.

But many were initially inspired when Delehanty wrote on his blog, “We all live in Richard Pombo’s district” – as in the Earth.

“That line got me really motivated,” said Eden James, who lives in Alameda and is a fan of Kid Oakland.

So motivated that James volunteered for Jerry McNerney, the Democrat who upset Pombo. Now, James is McNerney’s online communications director.

The media is starting to get it no?

We have a strong local blogosphere here in California and we are going to continue to grow.  I may be frustrated at the pace of change, but I have to keep reminding myself that we are a nascent movement.  Where we are now compared to a year ago is incredible.  I expect to feel the same way after next years Netroots Nation Convention (yes they changed the name).  So safe travels home everybody.  I look forward to having the brainpower to write a more detailed post and hear everybody else’s perspective on what they learned and how we are going to move forward.

Lucas posted a little bit about the beginning of the YearlyKos Convention, but there’s a little bit of California here. In fact, over 200 Californians are registered for this convention. Hey, that’s not too bad considering that Chicago is a long flight away from California. 

So, Kid Oakland worked really hard to get the regional caucuses set up, and Dave and Julia organized the California caucus. So, thanks!  We spent the bulk of the time introducing ourselves, but that’s pretty darn useful. Listen, Blogs are great, but at some point we need to get to know each other in the real world.

We also talked briefly about how important California’s legislature and legislation is to the nation as a whole. Whether that’s for better (the catalytic convertor) or for worse (the anti-tax bug of the late 1970s), California matters. Finally, we wrapped up with a few minutes from some of our great California candidates for Congress. Charlie Brown, Steve Young, Ron Shepston, and Russ Warner each told us a little bit about themselves.  And hey, looky we even have a picture with the four of them (thanks, Dante!).