Video: Debate questioner is affiliated with Hillary’s — and Kerry’s — campaigns; Update: Plantmania!

posted at 11:09 pm on November 28, 2007 by Allahpundit

As incredible as it may seem, given all the flak they took for not vetting questioners after the last debate, CNN not only approved a question from someone affiliated with the Clinton campaign without identifying the affiliation, they invited him to the debate so that he could ask a follow-up. One of the lefty blogs whined after my post about the last debate that those crazy wingnuts shouldn’t be surprised to find former state Democratic Party officials asking questions at what was, after all, a Democratic Party event. Okay. Should I not be surprised to find a Democratic campaign operative — not just from this campaign but from the last one too, per the end of this post — asking questions at the Republican debate either?

Just identify the guy, CNN. His question’s perfectly fair. And, apropos of nothing, Hunter’s answer is awful.

Update (Bryan): Not that we need anymore proof, but Kerr’s name appears in this Clinton press release. It’s about halfway down the list.

Update (MM): Another one…and another one…and another one…


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

anybody calls me francis….I kill ya

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 12:48 AM

you touch my stuff…I kill ya

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 12:49 AM

So, let me see if I get this right, if it’s ok for gays to openly serve in the military where is my right to walk unopposed into the womans locker room at the local gym or swimming pool? But but dorian, you might get sexually aroused…which is exactly my point.

doriangrey on November 29, 2007 at 12:24 AM

Remind me to teach you how to make your own “locker costume” some time, if you’re truly interested in spending time in womens’ locker rooms undetected.

Seriously though, it’s telling that no one had a logical answer to your comment.

Anyway, the gay debate is pointless… we’ve all been round and round. Those that have an ounce of common sense recognize how illogical being gay is. No point in rehashing that.. the point is, as explained earlier, CNN is more and more open about being the Clinton News Network
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/28/video-debate-questioner-is-affiliated-with-hillarys-and-kerrys-campaigns/#comment-798134

RightWinged on November 29, 2007 at 12:49 AM

hey allah, can you post some of the bill bennett post stuff? i’m intriged.

jummy on November 29, 2007 at 12:49 AM

any yuenzzz homos…touch me…..I kill ya
Thank you Stripes..

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 12:50 AM

The problem is, do you let gays serve OPENLY? Thats the debate. Not a new phenomenon, just not a good idea to weaken the moral of others.

m1a1usmc on November 29, 2007 at 12:50 AM

I must be the only one who likes Bill Murray.

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 12:51 AM

But but dorian, you might get sexually aroused…which is exactly my point.

doriangrey on November 29, 2007 at 12:24 AM

That would last for all of the five seconds it took for one of the women to start pointing and laughing!

Bradky on November 29, 2007 at 12:51 AM

has this ever been polled amongst the people who’s morale is presumably at stake?

whenever i hear that thrown out there as a trope it always sounds like “for the children” to me.

jummy on November 29, 2007 at 12:53 AM

That would last for all of the five seconds it took for one of the women to start pointing and laughing!

dude.

Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 12:56 AM

Like all other normal people, most want to be sure that the person, guy or girl isn’t right next to them checking them out…especially in a military unit. If there were gay guys in my unit and they weren’t publicly announcing their preferences and making it a point to check the other guys out I don’t see a problem with having gay dudes in my unit. Mission and cohesion come first. In general I take issue with anyone makes the anchor of their identity those with whom they prefer to sleep, their race, etc..

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 12:58 AM

The problem is, do you let gays serve OPENLY? Thats the debate. Not a new phenomenon, just not a good idea to weaken the moral of others.

m1a1usmc on November 29, 2007 at 12:50 AM

Nice attempted back-track, you dolt. As far as the attempt, I agree that it is not a question to be asked when enlisting fopr military service. The codes of conduct are clear.

nuff said.

awake on November 29, 2007 at 12:58 AM

Where to you billet them? Females and males are seperated. You would have to have seperate quarters? I couldn’t shower with the ladies, but the OPEN gay female can? That aint right.

m1a1usmc on November 29, 2007 at 12:59 AM

This does Mrs. Clinton no favors, either. She’ll be seen more the insider she really is.

SouthernGent on November 29, 2007 at 1:00 AM

dude.. You feel comfy being close to and in some cases nasaly close to other adult people’s body parts in this case people that are the same gender as you… and well..

amend2 on November 29, 2007 at 1:01 AM

Hey Awake, even those as enlightened as you don’t need to start name-calling

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 1:01 AM

Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 12:56 AM

LOL think about it. Male locker room reaction: Everyone turned and stared as the unclothed female recruit strolled through

Female locker room: As the male recruit strolled through the locker room at full mast assorted giggles could be heard.

Nothing to do with size at all!

Bradky on November 29, 2007 at 1:01 AM

I can be naked in the same sleeping system with another dude-for warmth, fighting hypothermia…whateva, forgetaboutit

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 1:03 AM

They gave the plant 2 minutes to opine, but the candidates only 30 seconds to respond? They accepted his video, then invited him to the floor to make his speech.

The nerve of Cooper to act stunned that this guy was a plant. The whole thing was a set up.

p0s3r on November 29, 2007 at 1:04 AM

Guys, please don’t be distracted by this so-called “gay issue”. This is not about gays. This is about CNN, yet again, complying with the Hilary Clinton campaign, to plant one of their operatives to ask a loaded question, in what was advertised by CNN, as a venue for regular people to ask questions they deemed important to them.
It’s just another episode in the long history of Liberals, and Democrats in general,in using “victims” to stifle their opposition and achieve their goals.

RMR on November 29, 2007 at 1:05 AM

awake on November 29, 2007 at 12:58 AM

This all started ’cause I said that homosexuality is about immoral dieviant sex… it is… ask Gen. Pace.

m1a1usmc on November 29, 2007 at 1:05 AM

Nothing to do with size at all!

Yeah, but it’s a callback…forced regurgitation of the image of a well-waxed Hitch. Thanks. No, really. heh.

Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 1:05 AM

I hate CNN

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 1:05 AM

I have heard it called;
the Clinton News Network
the Classified News Network
but never, have I ever heard it called objective…

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 1:06 AM

m1a1usmc on November 29, 2007 at 1:05 AM

I just got off the phone with Pace and he told me to tell you to lighten up you homophobe and go kill some jihadists to blow off some steam.

awake on November 29, 2007 at 1:06 AM

Spirit of 1776 on November 29, 2007 at 1:05 AM

LOL well Dorian does kind of have the Fabio look so maybe he would be the exception!

Sorry for the Hitch flashback

Bradky on November 29, 2007 at 1:07 AM

Kill some Jihadis devil daaawwg!

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Republicans should boycott further CNN “debates” because of this.

Iblis on November 29, 2007 at 1:10 AM

This is about CNN, yet again, complying with the Hilary Clinton campaign, to plant one of their operatives to ask a loaded question,

RMR on November 29, 2007 at 1:05 AM

true enough. i’ve said my piece (peace?) on it. now i wanna see some of the bill bennet post commentary.

jummy on November 29, 2007 at 1:13 AM

awake on November 29, 2007 at 1:06 AM

Did my 3 tours, spent 8 months waiting for surgery, discharged in Dec 06, and loving my 40% and the MGIB… don’t hate.

m1a1usmc on November 29, 2007 at 1:13 AM

Okay , my take as a Master Sergeant with 17 years in so far, I don’t believe it is a good idea to let gays serve openly. Nothing personal, they can live their lifestyle, not for me to judge, but the average young man serving is still very uncomfortable with that. Until our society is completely comfortable with the gay lifestyle, if ever, than it can’t happen.Who knows? Maybe a few generations down the road it might happen.I still find it funny that we want to turn our military into some sort of an experiment. I personally do not have time to deal with the amount of problems this could cause. We have problems enough overcoming poor upbringing by many parents. God bless our young Marines and soldiers but remember Gen Y is the generation of entitlement. These guys are no different when they first join up. We have to teach them that they have to actually earn their pay and entitlements. The last thing I need is to spend half my day dealing with PC crap and keeping a young man from facing verbal and possible physical abuse. Sorry folks, we aren’t ready for this quite yet.

gator70 on November 29, 2007 at 1:15 AM

Semper Fi m1a1usmc…about to finish a commission packet, did five years enlisted..potentially going back for more

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 1:16 AM

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 1:16 AM
MUSTANG!

m1a1usmc on November 29, 2007 at 1:18 AM

Hope so!

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 1:19 AM

m1, thanks for you service man…hope all is well with you and yours.

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 1:22 AM

ColdBore76 on November 29, 2007 at 1:19 AM

Good luck! Yall have fun with this string of comments…

m1a1usmc on November 29, 2007 at 1:24 AM

There was a debate? Knock me over with a feather. I had no idea.

Was there ANYTHING of actual importance said, or was it just the usual nonsense, (other than gay democrat general clintonoid plants)?

I’m an old ‘Army Guy’ (1970s); I, personally, wouldn’t have cared about serving with any homosexuals that were competent in their jobs; except for two things: I wouldn’t like constantly getting ‘hit on’; (I was a darn good looking guy in the 70s ;-) and worrying about some of my peers smacking them around if they found out….. ( I wonder how many homosexuals have made it through Ranger School…. Don’t tell me if there are more than a few, let me maintain my illusions)

LegendHasIt on November 29, 2007 at 2:55 AM

My son is in the Army. He says he doesn’t care. They know some guys in the military who are gay and they don’t care. Then again, no one is showing up for PT in a dress.

bnelson44 on November 28, 2007 at 11:53 PM

It doesn’t matter if someone is straight or not, just as long as they can shoot straight.
- Barry Goldwater

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 3:18 AM

The problem is, do you let gays serve OPENLY? Thats the debate. Not a new phenomenon, just not a good idea to weaken the moral of others.

m1a1usmc on November 29, 2007 at 12:50 AM

No, wouldn’t be prudent.
Maybe in the Air Force, but not the Marines.

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 3:25 AM

We do not have homosexuals in our Military. We do not have this phenomenon in our military. Perhaps you have this in your crappy little jihadi cell, but this does not happen in the US military.

/ahmadinejad

Bad Candy on November 29, 2007 at 3:29 AM

In case people are still looking for more Democrat plants in the debate tonight, here’s another one:

Ted Faturos, the corn subsidies questioner, was an intern for Democrat Congresswoman Jane Harman.

–Jason

Jason Coleman on November 29, 2007 at 4:29 AM

And ANOTHER one. . . were there ANY real Republicans selected by CNN?

–Jason

Jason Coleman on November 29, 2007 at 5:32 AM

Nope. This was an orchestrated farce by CNN, the Clinton News Network. They fly in a gay Colonel and closeted twinkie Anderson Cooper decides to put him on a soap box, just on the spur of the moment, to lecture America about gays in the military.

They are incapable of playing anything straight.

Jaibones on November 29, 2007 at 6:05 AM

Btw, the discussion here about queers in the military is way off base; that’s not the story. The story is at least 4 plants from Democrat campaigns lying about their positions and intentions, and CNN playing along with it.

No one is stupid enough to believe that these “just slipped through” Cooper, you putz.

Jaibones on November 29, 2007 at 6:07 AM

I think a shrink would have a great deal of fun with the fact that on of the most common comments on this thread … is the ever-popular Gays in the Shower Nightmare scenario.

I’d offer a comment, but frankly it doesn’t take Freudian expertise to know that those remarks speak great big leather-clad volumes all by themselves.

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 6:40 AM

So we have the “big” plant (discussed at length here), the 3 others covered at Malkin’s site, and thanks to a commenter at Malkin’s site WE HAVE 2 MORE!!!
http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2007/11/using_my_green_thumb_to_find_plants.html
http://www.jasoncoleman.com/BlogArchives/2007/11/yet_another_democrat_plant.html

6 Plants/Active Democrats (which folks have discovered with simple searches), so far.

RightWinged on November 29, 2007 at 6:41 AM

Also apropos of nothing, but the thumbnail frame for the video above is just blurry enough so it looks like it says “CATS IN THE MILITARY”.

Don’t ask, don’t purr!

flipflop on November 29, 2007 at 6:41 AM

CNN is going the way of the NYT and Dan Rather. A few planted videos were expected- even if they had to fabricate them. Giving the general a platform for his contrarian position was way over the line.

Valiant on November 29, 2007 at 6:47 AM

The story is at least 4 plants from Democrat campaigns lying about their positions and intentions, and CNN playing along with it.

Damn straight!! Why the hell is this crap allowed to go unchallenged? Fox and the RNC should both be all over this as prima facie evidence of bad faith on the part of CNN, including the fact that their denials are lies. When does the part about “It’s the cover-up” come into play for the MSM?

As for the gay general – well, I guess his stinkbomb worked, if I look at most of this thread, because that’s what we’re all talking about instead of national security, for example. Helps the Dems position us as knuckledraggers, instead of defenders of freedom, doesn’t it?

Hell, maybe we should rename the Republican Party to the “Passive Party”? Just tell us how you want to position us, and we’re there for you!

drunyan8315 on November 29, 2007 at 6:53 AM

Just tell us how you want to position us, and we’re there for you!

drunyan8315 on November 29, 2007 at 6:53 AM

Just don’t say that in the shower. Cuz, you know.

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 7:01 AM

I knew it! As soon as I saw the guy I knew he was a plant. And when Bennett called them out on it after the debate, the CNN guy acted shocked! “well we will have to check into this” Yeah right!

conservnut on November 29, 2007 at 7:02 AM

I attended the debate last night and just before the debate, Anderson Cooper asked the audience if they had any questions. Someone asked, “Are there any plants in the audience”? Got huge laughter…

Not so funny.

stenwin77 on November 29, 2007 at 7:05 AM

The Dems not going on Fox is a tip-off regarding how dishonest they are. If they can’t plant and seed, they just stay away. That will never register in the brains of the average voter, and Dem supporters don’t care how their ilk get elected.

It is worth considering that the Republicans go into the fray, get the deck stacked against them and still play by the rules even though they get no extra points for just being what Americans expect out of their leaders.

Homosexuals in the military was also seen as the divisive issue it is meant to be. The Clintons are totally uncomfortable with our military, and I guess loading it up with homosexuals and cross-dressers would make it more palatable for them. This is a key personal issue with Hillary that she will not let go.

Hening on November 29, 2007 at 7:55 AM

You know what, this is all the fault of the ever so gutless GOP. Why on earth are the candidates putting up with these farces (“debates” is a joke of a term) run by enemedia Democrats? Why? To appear to be nice guys?

Can’t at least one of our candidates put his foot down and demand an actual debate, moderated by rational people, and focused on the life and death wartime issues that should be the alpha and omega of any political discussion in 2007? As it is, they are all demeaning themselves with this game of charades. I’m disgusted.

Halley on November 29, 2007 at 7:59 AM

At least the Republicans had the guts to debate on that ultra left wing network, CNN. The sniveling Democrats cowered in the corner and refused to go on FOX.

rplat on November 29, 2007 at 8:03 AM

Just wanted to point out this little known fact: Keith Kerr was actually a brigadier general in the Confederate army.

Spread the word.

Ali-Bubba on November 29, 2007 at 8:03 AM

I knew it. I knew it. I knew.

CNN strikes again.

reppac122 on November 29, 2007 at 8:10 AM

I don’t know that Anderson Cooper knew, but clearly the CNN producers were grossly negligent, if not willfully complicit.

Buy Danish on November 29, 2007 at 8:17 AM

Drudge has apparently crashed MMs server with a link to her plant articles and updates stc. This is getting bigger by the minute.

roninacreage on November 29, 2007 at 8:22 AM

The other news outlets should be screaming at the top of their lungs that CNN has taken a partisan position in the election (I know: duh), and that it threatens the credibility of all of them in the debates.

The story fits my worldview like a glove, and it’s why I pay zero attention to these dog and pony shows, but if I was MSNBC or ABC or the League of Women Voters I would be demanding a formal explanation right now. As someone pointed out above, this also puts the Democrat candidates in the position of having to explain their refusal to go on Fox, now in the context of “Is this why you are afraid of Fox? You have rigged the debates at the lib-friendly networks, so you assume the same of Fox?”

Anyone got any of those honey roasted peanuts? This should be fun…

Jaibones on November 29, 2007 at 8:29 AM

There is a report on NR that all rebroadcasts of this debate have the Gay General taken out.

Anyone know if this is true?

stenwin77 on November 29, 2007 at 8:31 AM

I originally thought this had disaster potential because we’d have a bunch of loaded questions from the videos; I never expected the absolute moral authority card to be played by a gay activist employed by the Hillary campaign to chuck a stink bomb out there and then start filibustering; it was surreal. Well, I hope Karl Rove decides to get a real foreign policy plant into a democrat debate. Their debates are so unserious; it sounds like a bunch of college students going on about a socialist utopia. But, we won’t. We don’t do what the democrats do; we just lay down, take it, complain, and eventually lose.

austinnelly on November 29, 2007 at 8:31 AM

Anyone who’s ever served in a co-ed military unit knows how much sex is already going on in the barracks and how detrimental it is to unit morale. Now people want to add another sexual dynamic into this mix, one that cannot be regulated?

BohicaTwentyTwo on November 29, 2007 at 8:32 AM

Very true Bohica, my nephew in the Air Force tells me about the large number of females at his base who end up knocked up.

roninacreage on November 29, 2007 at 8:40 AM

Anyone who’s ever served in a co-ed military unit knows how much sex is already going on in the barracks and how detrimental it is to unit morale. Now people want to add another sexual dynamic into this mix, one that cannot be regulated?

BohicaTwentyTwo on November 29, 2007 at 8:32 AM

Being a former Marine, my experience with “co-ed” (who says that?) barracks is admittedly rather limited. The first (and last) time I actually lived in the same barracks with WM’s (female Marines), I think there were exactly four of them. And something like 182 of us.

And one of them was my squad leader. Corporal Taylor. I still have nightmares about her room inspections.

But if memory serves, the only reason the potentially sexual aspect was detrimental to my morale is because I sure the hell wasn’t getting any from my aforementioned comrades-in-arms.

Thank God for the Air Force barracks across the street. Now they improved morale.

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 8:43 AM

I wondered about that Edward’s lady too. She looked a little too smug I thought. Lying plant?

jeanie on November 29, 2007 at 8:44 AM

I thought there was something up the moment they went back to the guy in the audience to ask him if he thought his question was answered, then the guy goes on for another minute with, what felt like, a prepared rebuttal. My first thought was “why is CNN breaking format and letting this guy get more airtime, general or not? No one else got to follow up their YouTube question after it was answered with an open statement, why him?”. What a coincidence the general who submitted a question that was aired just happened to be in the audience, right there handy to rebut any answers given.

I was smelling something fishy, contrived and setup about the whole thing as I was watching it unfold. If CNN and the Clinton campaign are going to setup the Republican candidates like this they should hire better actors because that was an awful performance on their part.

FYI: Why is Hillary planting people like this anyway? Is she starting to see her preplanned coronation to be President slowly slipping away and thinks she has to rig it the rest of the way to win.

Planet Boulder on November 29, 2007 at 8:54 AM

Supposedly, 10% of any given sample of people are gay

This has nothing to do with the question at hand, but I did look into this figure once when teaching a class about citing sources.

The research behind the famous 1-in-10 figure is quite suspect. Kinsey did a lot of his interviews among prison populations. Here’s some background.

I’m not anti-gay, but I’m anti-junk science. I know a lot of gays personally, but I’ve long suspected that 10 percent number is way high.

saint kansas on November 29, 2007 at 9:09 AM

Wow, this is getting huge, check out MM’s site and Drudge now. Lot’s of plants and lib activists last night. And we called them as they came up.

Seems like every time we yelled “PLANT” last night….We were right!

conservnut on November 29, 2007 at 9:09 AM

roninacreage on November 29, 2007 at 8:40 AM

Is you nephew in Korea? My army unit in Korea was stationed on an Air Force Base. We called our unit The Soap Opera because of all the drama. When I left, about 10% of the single females were pregnant, including one LT and the commander.

I heard CNN say the General was a Log Cabin Republican. My question, is this proof that the LCR are an astroturf group.

BohicaTwentyTwo on November 29, 2007 at 9:17 AM

Heh heh… Duncan Hunter said “workin’ a small tight unit…”

heh heh

/beavis

saint kansas on November 29, 2007 at 9:24 AM

Looking at Yahoo News, MSNBC, Google News, AP, etc no mention of the Hillary plant.

Only Drudge, Fox, and the right side of the blogosphere is talking about it.

James on November 29, 2007 at 9:42 AM

I’m not anti-gay, but I’m anti-junk science. I know a lot of gays personally, but I’ve long suspected that 10 percent number is way high.

saint kansas on November 29, 2007 at 9:09 AM

I couldn’t personally care less about who is gay and who isn’t, but I’ve read a lot of research that supports your suspicion. I’m sure you can find plenty of it Googling around.

If I recall correctly, other more reputable (and more recent) studies have found the figure more in the 1%-5% range. I think it’s obvious that the reason the 10% figure is repeated so frequently is that its the highest of any study.

I’d wager that the actual figure is 1-2%.

Of course, that still means there’s something like 4-5 million gays out there waiting to take a shower with you. So don’t let your guard down. And if you drop the soap, just let it go, man. Let it go.

Professor Blather on November 29, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Get ready for the crookedest election “EVAH!”

ronsfi on November 29, 2007 at 10:01 AM

I was watching CNN’s graphic over the screen, where they were monitoring the men and women from their “focus group” of “undecided Republican voters” when this General stood up to speak and after about the first 10 seconds, did anyone else notice it drop to about 2 or 3 for both the women and the men?

Seems to me, voter-wise, in the BIG picture..this just isn’t a huge issue.

serpentineshel on November 29, 2007 at 10:11 AM

I have nothing against atheists serving in our armed forces, but that doesn’t free them from facing reality.

Hunter’s answer was 100% dead on. Recruiting into an all-volunteer force will plunge if the General has his way. I don’t care whether you like it or not. I don’t care whether you believe it or not. That’s just the way it is.

By the way, didn’t allowing (alledgedly chaste) homosexuals into the Catholic priesthood work out swell?

corona on November 29, 2007 at 11:23 AM

When CNN was asked about the plants…they just shrubbed it off.

right2bright on November 29, 2007 at 11:38 AM

I really don’t care if they are “plants” as long as they ask good questions. The harder the question the better in my eyes, I’m sick of seeing softballs tossed. If that comes from a plant it is fine with me. Just ask legitimate questions.

Hammerhead on November 29, 2007 at 12:21 PM

I thought there was something up the moment they went back to the guy in the audience to ask him if he thought his question was answered, then the guy goes on for another minute with, what felt like, a prepared rebuttal. My first thought was “why is CNN breaking format and letting this guy get more airtime, general or not? No one else got to follow up their YouTube question after it was answered with an open statement, why him?”. What a coincidence the general who submitted a question that was aired just happened to be in the audience, right there handy to rebut any answers given.

Planet Boulder on November 29, 2007 at 8:54 AM

Bingo, but I don’t know that Hillary’s campaign was necessarily involved. Do I take them at their word when they deny involvement? Of course not, but CNN is the primary target right now.

Buy Danish on November 29, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Ted Faturos, the corn subsidies questioner, was an intern for Democrat Congresswoman Jane Harman.

–Jason

Jason Coleman on November 29, 2007 at 4:29 AM

Still a legitimate question though, and he didn’t get to badger the participants the way the Hillary-plant was.

Otherwise, I didn’t mind the General’s actual question so much, mostly because Mitt gave another waffling answer “…uh, there’s a war on, so ask me later. Nevermind my previous stance.”

Hollowpoint on November 29, 2007 at 1:09 PM

I really don’t care if they are “plants” as long as they ask good questions. The harder the question the better in my eyes, I’m sick of seeing softballs tossed. If that comes from a plant it is fine with me. Just ask legitimate questions.

Hammerhead on November 29, 2007 at 12:21 PM

I agree. Not surprised at all that cnn would plant questions, and the harder the better, it just makes our guys look that much better, so bring it, Complete Non Network!

4shoes on November 29, 2007 at 1:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3