As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
[Politics] Julia Hall: Obama's Possibly Planted Question and Reactions
_J_
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
The problem with politics is that sometimes Michelle Malkin is right. Apparently the little girl, Julia Hall, who asked Obama the "what's wrong with the fuckheads?" question at the New Hampshire town hall was the daughter of an Obama campaign contributor, according to this Boston Globe story. So, Obama answered a planted question at a town hall.
When this was revealed in the Health Care thread immediately the factions were defined: Obama apologists on one side, W defending "See, Obama is just as bad" asshats on the other side.
Here's my question: What do we make of this?
I know that if W had answered a planted question at a town hall I would have been irritated, I would have written an angry blog post about it or bitched about it on the forums. But when Obama employs a similar strategy I am fine with it. Health Care is an important issue; to ensure that Obama can communicate the necessary facts perhaps he needs to employ planted questions.
But does that make me an Obama apologist? Or did it mean that back when I attacked W I was simply utilizing a situation with which I do not have an inherent problem (answering a planted question) to vent?
What does it say of the larger political landscape when similar strategies are utilized but the reactions to these strategies differ depending upon who employs them? Are we engaged in a politics of hypocrisy? Or is there a genuine difference between "W answers a planted question" and "Obama answers a planted question"? Do we assign too much meaning to actions and rather the larger context need be assessed? Or, are some actions repugnant regardless of who employs them?
Regardless of where we end up on the issue of planted questions and political strategy, though, I think we can all agree that Michelle Malkin remains, now and forever, a stupid fucking cunt.
*Update*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZuvQ-3uvY
As a few people have pointed out the Boston Globe article does not state that "Julia Hall was a plant" but rather states that: "Julia's mother was an early Obama supporter and donor in Massachusetts during the presidential election, so she had previously met First Lady Michelle Obama, the Obama daughters Sasha and Malia, and Vice President Joe Biden." From this some have inferred that Julia Hall was a plant and this inference might be fallacious.
According to voices.kansascity.com: "For the record, the White House denies Hall's question was planted by the administration."
When this was revealed in the Health Care thread immediately the factions were defined: Obama apologists on one side, W defending "See, Obama is just as bad" asshats on the other side.
Here's my question: What do we make of this?
I know that if W had answered a planted question at a town hall I would have been irritated, I would have written an angry blog post about it or bitched about it on the forums. But when Obama employs a similar strategy I am fine with it. Health Care is an important issue; to ensure that Obama can communicate the necessary facts perhaps he needs to employ planted questions.
But does that make me an Obama apologist? Or did it mean that back when I attacked W I was simply utilizing a situation with which I do not have an inherent problem (answering a planted question) to vent?
What does it say of the larger political landscape when similar strategies are utilized but the reactions to these strategies differ depending upon who employs them? Are we engaged in a politics of hypocrisy? Or is there a genuine difference between "W answers a planted question" and "Obama answers a planted question"? Do we assign too much meaning to actions and rather the larger context need be assessed? Or, are some actions repugnant regardless of who employs them?
Regardless of where we end up on the issue of planted questions and political strategy, though, I think we can all agree that Michelle Malkin remains, now and forever, a stupid fucking cunt.
*Update*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZuvQ-3uvY
As a few people have pointed out the Boston Globe article does not state that "Julia Hall was a plant" but rather states that: "Julia's mother was an early Obama supporter and donor in Massachusetts during the presidential election, so she had previously met First Lady Michelle Obama, the Obama daughters Sasha and Malia, and Vice President Joe Biden." From this some have inferred that Julia Hall was a plant and this inference might be fallacious.
According to voices.kansascity.com: "For the record, the White House denies Hall's question was planted by the administration."
_J_ on
0
Posts
Would I be a plant if I asked a question and they found out that I donated or helped with the campaign?
Still, that's not at all outrageous, and more importantly it doesn't prove at all that she was a plant.
Wait, now you're going to tell me that presidents only kiss babies for the photo op.
Steam 3DS: 1160-9885-2554
Let me explain it to you.
That question was planted. OK? Glad we cleared that up.
Actually, they do that because they're drawn to the baby nectar.
According to the mom, the kid said she wanted to ask a question. Horrible exploitation.
The article doesn't even say that it was a planted question. It just talks about the girl and how she felt about asking it/her background. Just because someone's mother was a former campaign contributor of which there were thousands and they had previously met the president doesn't make it a planted question.
Also your post is seriously fucking shitty. Something is so just because you say so?
Steam 3DS: 1160-9885-2554
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
She also said she wanted to run for office someday. Seems like this is typical Malkin grasping at straws. Why is this even a story? I mean I could see someone make the connection if there was evidence of Obama or members of his staff meeting with the girl or her mother beforehand but the article doesn't mention anything like that. The article seems like its just an fluffy article about a young girl's positive experience with a President
Steam 3DS: 1160-9885-2554
You want it explained clearerer?
That question was planted. And it's being totally ignored by the media which finds Obama's shady contacts too inconvenient to deal with. There's a picture of him with that girl's mom. Just think about that.
Secret Presidential Love-Child Throws Planted Softball At Socialist Rally, full story on page two.
Apparently I can't understand sarcasm. Thanks for making things clearerer
Steam 3DS: 1160-9885-2554
It's like telling the tobacco companies they need to think about the health of their consumers.
Really. What a fucking double-standard.
Steam 3DS: 1160-9885-2554
the difference of course being that we have pretty ample evidence of bush planting questions at press conferences, and his came from supposedly legitimate "journalists," not children
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Didn't your media get all pissy because Obama's team told a HuffPuff journalist the night beforehand that she/he'd be called upon to ask a specific question that Obama would know in advance? Or is that not what happened? I don't follow these stories much.
edit: btw I tried looking it up and found we're number two on a google search for "Obama + planted questions"
When I googled it this thread was above the Malkin Article
We're not all connected to Obama by a hivemind. I don't see how it would exclude any of us from legitimately asking a question at a town hall, no matter how softball or cutesy. As for the fact that it was a kid... well, most polls of kids indicated that a huge percentage were prObama, well over the majority that eventually elected him. I'm not at all surprised that a kid would want to ask him a question, nor would I care in the slightest if her parents coached her a little so she made it a good one.
Am I saying that she wasn't a plant? No. I have no idea one way or another. But you can't just say, flat-out, that it was a plant without actual evidence. Michelle Malkin, while she would look great covered in honey in a bathtub wrestling with Megan Fox, doesn't qualify as a credible source. Even if you think she's right.
- The kid asked the mother to ask the question, and the mother worked to get her in
- The mother instructed the kid to ask this question.
- The Obama administration asked the mother to get the kid to ask the question.
Only #3 is a mistake by the administration obviously, and as far as I can see, there's no evidence for that at all. Malkin only uses pure conjecture (They donated money (which over a million people did), they "met" Mrs. Obama, the kids and Biden, not detailing how and when). There are no details pointing to this question being an administration plant.#2 is possible, and if so, perhaps not so honest parenting. The Boston Globe story makes it clear that the parents are active political, and trying to pass on their values to the children.
But I've not seen anything that refutes #1. Is there any evidence that this wasn't her initiative?
Also, it's important to remember that Malkin is a person who openly admitted to stalking a kid because he dared to publically relate his story in support of the SCHIP expansion bill:
She's also endangered the lives of students opposing military recruitment at UC Santa Cruz and an Iraqi police officer named Jamal Hussein, again for the act of opposing her political stances. So anything that Malkin says should be taken with a shakerful of salt.
And it's not like Kathleen Hall's affiliations were hidden. The Globe article clearly states that she was a high level campaigner for Obama. In comparison, let's take UHC opponent Katy Abram, who you may have seen on national TV after he ranted at a town hall that she didn't want the US "to become Russia". On TV, she claimed to be just a housewife who was never interested in politics until the UHC issue. Of course, she failed to mention that she is a Glenn Beck 9/12 organizer. Or how about that she's been active on the political networking site Meetup since 2006?
Yeah, I'm not buying the plant story. Especially when it's Malkin doing the selling.
The problem here is the reduction of Bush's media manipulation (and complacency on part of the media) that led to (among other things) a goddamned fucking war starting with very little critical examination or opposition to "he planted questions, too!" and then comparing it to whatever the fuck this is and waiting for the outrage.
Obama shouldn't use plants, but if using children as plants was Bush's problem then he really wouldn't had that many.
And what, exactly, is the problem with the administration planting a question? Are we suddenly in some sort of bizarro-world where American politics are squeaky clean and politicians are willing to pass up political opportunity because it's wrong? W Bush planting questions was a whole other ballpark, and the arguments are more about his constant misinformation disseminated to the public than about the fact that was given the opportunity to make a carefully scripted statement in a press conference.
The thing that irritated me about Bush was the fact that he outright banned people of the opposing ideology from his rallies and generally avoided answering tough questions. Obama and the Democrats, meanwhile, don't seem to be stacking the decks entirely with registered Democrats, nor are they fielding questions on healthcare exclusively from people who already support it. Rather, they recognize that it's a complex issue and are taking steps to educate the public about it by answering the questions they have, albeit from questioners who can ask without descending into lunacy, like the people who go to townhalls to tell people they're going to hell.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Town halls aren't press conferences, and the idea of having someone throw a prearranged question without saying so is dishonest. Saying "well the other guys did too" is not a defense, it's catharsis.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Politico got pissy that a competing website was called on by the President and baselessly insinuated that they'd coordinated questions beforehand. They hadn't.
Let's not go there. Planting questions is bad. If an administration wants to make a statement, or answer a question they wrote themselves, they can do so in any number of press conferences rather than the guise of a town hall.
But I really hate this debating what Bush did vs. what Obama did, when there is no goddamn proof that this was a plant.
Without any proof, arguing this is stupid and basically conceding the point that Obama did some shady shit when there is no evidence that he did.
If you don't want that, fine, but don't say that you that.
I didn't like the planted HuffPo question much, though I understand how the administration wanted it to be asked. These events all have limited time, and once you start slotting planted questions, why stop with just a few?
And this goes double when the person pushing the "plant" angle has shown no compunctions about stalking kids and endangering people because they dared to oppose her.
Do you really think that there's such a thing as an un-planted answer? The whole Obama/Gates crap was about the fact that he threw away the talking-points and actually put forth a real answer on his opinion.
Seriously, I don't understand why people are under the illusion that political discourse is anything other than a carefully worded script. Yet when politicians start actually "scripting" things people get up in arms. Jesus, W was evil and started two wars by lying to the public, his skill at politics is paramount for actually getting away with it. Let's not call a chair anything other than a chair.