Update | 8:05 AM: Hillary's Howard tries to weasel out. See update at foot.
Like Rudy and Romney going after each other over immigration last night at the GOP debate, MSNBC was taking some jabs at rival CNN this morning on the issue of the gay questioner who turned out to be a member of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
"Morning Joe" host Joe Scarborough scoffed at the notion that no one at CNN was aware of retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr's involvement with the Clinton campaign.
View video here.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: This is twice now in a couple of weeks that CNN has been ensnarled in a Clinton controversy. Before with James Carville sitting there giving his opinions despite the fact that he's contributed to Hillary Clinton, obviously worked for Bill Clinton, he sent out letters saying we really need to fight hard for Hillary Clinton. They didn't even mention it. And again, the damndest thing.
And last night, not only do they have this guy delivering a YouTube video, they also had him there sitting in the audience, they had a shot with him [more than a shot. Anderson Cooper asked whether he was satisifed with the answers he had received and grilled Romney over his answer. Kerr himself made an extended comment from the floor]. It's Bill Bennett [who was a CNN post-debate panelist], it is up to Bill Bennett to explain to CNN, and don't tell me that CNN didn't know, that some people at CNN did not know, that he was part of the Clinton campaign. Don't lie to me.
Maybe Anderson Cooper didn't know, but somebody at CNN that put this guy in the video knew that.
And a bit later:
SCARBOROUGH: I'm not blaming Anderson Cooper. He can't do everybody's work for him. But it is total crap to suggest that nobody in CNN knew that this guy was from the Clinton steering committee, and that somehow Bill Bennett, a conservative that -- let me tell you -- does not check the Hillary Clinton gay and bisexual and transsexual Americans for Hillary Clinton steering committee list every morning. If he knows, don't tell me that somebody at CNN doesn't know, and don't tell me that Hillary Clinton's campaign didn't know.
Neither of the other panelists were inclined to bail out CNN or the Clinton campaign.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I guess the real troubling thing here is that first of all Hillary Clinton doesn't need, it's the second time now a planted question is making that campaign look bad, and it's not something they need to do.WILLIE GEIST: Let's say it was a plant. Let's say Hillary Clinton's campaign called him and said "put your question up on YouTube." Hillary Clinton's campaign isn't the one picking the questions for the debate. So they can put all the questions they want up there. But isn't it up to the group putting the debate on to vet those questions?
SCARBOROUGH: Well it certainly is. And again, my point is this. I believe Anderson Cooper did not know. And I'm sure a lot of people at CNN did not know. But if Bill Bennett, while on the air, gets an email that says that this guy is a member of that task force, then they should have known. And I'll tell you why this bothers me. It bothers me because these are the type of questions that people love asking Republicans. They love getting [adopting a deep, serious voice] a strong military guy who's gay, God bless him, I love him, and then vilifying the Republican party. How in the world can you not want gays and lesbians and transgender, transsexual Americans in the military? And it was a clear set-up question, and I agree with you, Mika, I don't think it helps the Clintons: they don't need it. Hillary Clinton doesn't need it.
BRZEZINSKI: I can't imagine people high up in the campaign would support something like this. I actually emailed sort of two high-ranking members of the campaign at five this morning. So hopefully we'll hear something back.
My take:
There are two possibilities as far as the involvement in this plant by "high-ranking people" in the Clinton campaign:
a. they did know, and thus violated their pledge not to let anything like this happen again in the wake of Plant-gate in Iowa;
b. Hillary's campaign is out of control, its senior people unaware of rogue operations being carried out by low-ranking aides.
Neither possibility paints a flattering picture of the woman who would be Commander-in-Chief. As for CNN, I'd say it's time to invoke the "two strikes and you're out" rule. For that matter, throw in Wolf Blizter's abject failure to question Hillary on her licenses-for-illegals flip-flops, and you have three examples of CNN being in the tank for Clinton.
Note: Michelle Malkin has the goods on no fewer than four plants among the YouTube questioners.
Update | 8:05 AM: Hillary's Wolfson tries to weasel out.
View video here.
At 7:51 AM ET, Mika announced that she had received a reply from head Hillary honcho Howard Wolfson. As displayed on screen, Wolfson stated [emphasis added]: "Keith Kerr is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign."
Chris Matthews, a guest during the segment at the time, was unimpressed.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well "employee" could be a weasel word, too. I mean, he's not being paid? Well that's not the question that was asked.
Note also what Wolfson didn't say. He didn't claim the Clinton campaign was unaware of what Kerr was up to, nor did he say that the campaign hadn't encouraged him to do this. "Not acting on behalf of the campaign" is a meaningless non-denial denial.
Editor's Note (Ken Shepherd 08:18): It should be noted that CNN's Anderson Cooper quipped in a recent interview with Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham that "campaign operatives are people too," justifying political hacks posing questions at debate forums.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Joe seems to be on a
November 29, 2007 - 08:34 ET by taterJoe seems to be on a mission to point out everything bad Hil and her cronies do that will hurt her campaign since the whole "the poll shouldn't be on your show" debacle. Good for him.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Joe is Correct
November 29, 2007 - 08:49 ET by allanfJoe is correct. There is a reason why Democrats don't want to appear on Fox. They fear (wrongly) that Fox will pull the same stunts CNN pulls on the Republicans.
Letting a pro-Hillary activist ask a question without first explaining his background is not journalism. It is a disgrace.
You did notice that....
November 29, 2007 - 08:49 ET by OldSailor88The Gay General was the only chosen video that was also in the audience. Also, the Gay General was allowed WAY too much time to push he and Anderson's gay agenda.
This was a set up. But, unfortunately the Slick Willy propaganda campaign will make it go away.
Sailor
November 29, 2007 - 08:54 ET by BlondeOne of the questioners about the illegal invasion was also in the audience....one of the first 3? He had on a black cowboy hat when he asked his follow up.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Missed that one...
November 29, 2007 - 09:03 ET by OldSailor88Thanks, Blonde.
This subject is getting deep!
Check out what Michelle Malkin and Free Republic have dug up!
Hmm
November 29, 2007 - 08:51 ET by well99I will take A for 200 and the win.It amazes me the hubris of CNN and Hillary to try this stunt again.First time you may give them the benefit of the doubt.Second time no way.
Thanks for posting the video.I might even start watching Joe.
I think the Clinton
November 29, 2007 - 08:55 ET by motherbeltI think the Clinton campaign made an educated guess that, with CNN
picking the questions, a gay-soldier question (particularly from a
Brigadier General ) would make the cut. And they were right.
it's the second time now a planted question is making that campaign look bad, and it's not something they need to do. - Mika Brzezinski
And Mika is right...they don't need to do it. And it's aggravation they don't need.
But the Clinton campaign never takes chances. Just like with Bill's scandals and enemies, they always go the extra mile to slime someone, trip someone up, throw the monkey wrench, even if they don'tneed to. As Her Royal Clintoness said, you don't just strike back, "you have to deck your opponent." In other words, you don't stop kicking until they're down for the count.
And I'm really hoping that, in the end, that will be her undoing.
mb
November 29, 2007 - 08:57 ET by BlondeAll of the Clinton plants are beginning to take a toll.
I think Mark's spot-on. Either the "powers" are lying, or the underlings are oc (out of control).
Either way, bad news for HRC.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Either way, bad news for
November 29, 2007 - 09:03 ET by motherbeltEither way, bad news for HRC. -Blonde
I certainly hope so!
Wasn't it "un-decided" Dems
November 29, 2007 - 10:12 ET by general companyWasn't it "un-decided" Dems getting to ask the questions in the Dem debate? Guess on CNN they get to ask the Rupubs too. I now think the Repubs should boycott CNN. This is a set up every time, and a quite unabashfull one at that. No doubt in my mind the Clinton campain some how also helped pick the questions too.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
CNN = Clinton News Network =
November 29, 2007 - 09:30 ET by CTCNN = Clinton News Network = 0 Credibility
Are we really surprised
November 29, 2007 - 10:06 ET by pwozAre we really surprised though?
Michelle Malkin has the list
November 29, 2007 - 09:53 ET by fosstenCNN planted multiple Dem campaign supporters in the debate.
Forget 911, I dial 10MM.
Waiting for Bill's Defense
November 29, 2007 - 10:10 ET by ThisnThatHow will Bill defend Hillary on this one? Possible takes:
(1) Hillary did not have sexual relations with that General
(2) I guess this proves the Republicans really don't support our troops
(3) What are the Republicans afraid of? Why can't they answer questions from ordinary citizens without complaining?
In any case, he'll (along with others) will completely ignore what we all can see -- Hillary is a manipulative, conniving, disgusting individual, and these kinds of shenanigans would be a common, every-day think if she were to become President.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Mark, I dislike Hillary
November 29, 2007 - 10:16 ET by LeonMark,
I dislike Hillary with a passion but all this shows is that she's one step ahead of everyone else and outsmarting every single Republican candidate.
With that single plant she was able to expose the gaping hypocrisy in the Republican claim that they support the troops. Clearly they don't support the troops unless they believe everything the Republicans believe. Hatred of gays is so strong that Republicans have the nerve to boo a 42 year Veteran. That was sick.
Hillary singlehandedly with one plant showed America the Republicans true colors and the gaps in their SUPPOSED unilateral support for the troops.
Nobody on this site seems to want to address this clear hypocrisy. Everyone just wants to ignore it. Focus on the guy's plant status all you want, but it will never erase the video and audio footage of Republicans booing a veteran. The damage is done. Touche Hillary.
Slithering Leon
November 29, 2007 - 10:29 ET by JimboWell Leon, since you are unwilling to carry points from one thread to another that continually disprove your points, I will post my spackdown of you statement on this topic from last night here as well, just to keep you tap-dancing. And by the way – Hillary isn’t one step ahead any more. She has one foot in her political grave.
---------------------
"You should all be ashamed of your fellow Republicans and they're BOOOING of an American Veteran!"
Actually, with the exception of “Dr.” Ron Paul, I was very proud of all the Republican candidates. I would gladly take any one of them over any of the Democratic candidates every day of the week. Sorry your side has such a ptiful cast of characters from which to choose.
As for booing the homosexual retired military veteran, there was booing for several reasons, none of which you will acknowledge since it doesn’t fit your narrow mind or view of the situation.
He was booed because he refused to stop after several requests for the moderator to do so.
He was booed because he claimed his question was not answered, when in reality, it was answered, however it was not the answer he would have liked.
And CNN was being booed for choosing this individual, above hundreds of thousands of others who could have asked a question in person in an effort to embarrass the Republican panel to advance the liberal ideology of CNN.
"Gay soldier! Abort!! pull the chord!!"
Uhh... hey asshat...in case you weren't aware, the Republicans werent controlling the technology of tonight's debate. CNN was. So are you suggesting that CNN pulled the plug on the questioner they hand selected themselves?
You really suck at this Leon.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Jimbo, I replied to this
November 29, 2007 - 11:38 ET by LeonJimbo,
I replied to this post on its original thread 2 hours ago.
Pay attention. You should check to see if I responded before you assume I didn't.
Really
November 29, 2007 - 10:44 ET by well99You should watch the video again.When he was anounced after his video people applauded him.It wasnt till afterwards he was booed and by how many people.Not very many.Your can say all you want but it bs.Your just using a small portion of folks to portray all.Sounds pretty bigoted to me.
Anyone else notice that some
November 29, 2007 - 10:54 ET by JimboAnyone else notice that some of "Dr." Paul's culties sometimes started applauding before he actually answered the question? His followers are creepy.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Yeah, keep repeating it!
November 29, 2007 - 11:28 ET by sarcasmoIt might come true then!!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Hillary bias
November 29, 2007 - 11:41 ET by KC MulvilleHey, Leon, good morning! Gotta disagree on two issues here:
Liberals will argue that conservatives exploit the uniform, and accuse others of being unpatriotic, but that's just a shallow view of it. Conservatives support the troops and defend their honor in the exercise of their duty. We honor their service, not their apparel. There's a substance beneath the symbolism, and we only revere the symbolism to the degree it reflects the substance. The uniform is a symbol of service and duty; that's what we honor. When you use the uniform's symbolism to promote an agenda that has nothing to do with duty, the clothing no longer matters.
If Hillary's crowd did plant the general, trying to mask their agenda behind the uniform, then it reveals what little respect they have for the service and duty that the uniform is supposed to symbolize.
What really torques me is
November 29, 2007 - 10:32 ET by dscottWhat really torques me is because of the time taken up by planted questions, more legitmate questions were left unasked. Example: former Governor Crist of Florida wanted to ask if any of the candidates would consider setting up a national disaster re-insurance fund like Florida does for insurance companies who cover hurricanes. A good question and issue of debate considering natural disasters occur all over the country from earthquakes, tornadoes to hurricanes. We have national flood insurance. A genuine meat and potatoes question.
Yet CNN refused to ask the question but put up this lame gay question to waste people's time. It might be important to Dems and should be considered for Dem debates, but this issue is not on the Repub priority agenda as it is a settled issue for us as far as we are concerned.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
For me, the baseball question was the waste of time
November 29, 2007 - 10:42 ET by sarcasmoBut for me, Crist's program is totally socialistic. How does government (in Florida's case, it's going from big to obese just like the Federal one already-is) do a better job at insurance than insurance companies?? I don't care if Crist calls himself a Republican and calls it "insurance," it's still just like Federal Flood Insurance -- a total boondoggle that saddles the responsible with the ever-increasing burdens of the irresponsible. I know one candidate who'd have opposed it, but I'll bet some of the obese-government Republicans up there would support this kind of socialism.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
You missed the point Sarc,
November 30, 2007 - 10:08 ET by dscottYou missed the point Sarc, the question Crist wanted to raise was far more valid than the nonsense the Dem plants raised, the answers that discuss the merits or problems of the premise is what is important. How you handle regional disasters and rebuilding is of national import and something that should be on the public's radar, I mean how many Katrinas and CA wildfires do we need to review how disaters are handled??? If simply left to a small group of people to decide on an ad hoc basis we get the incompetence of Mayor Naygin or Governor Blanco or the billions of federal dollars wasted in give away programs. We are not talking about Socialism here, we are talking about a coordinated response from beginning to end. How the insurance companies (private enterprise) are able to handle and pay claims is vitially important to that whole disaster response.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Maybe you're misunderstanding me
November 30, 2007 - 10:13 ET by sarcasmoMy point is that Crist's "solution" is more obese government socialism. I'm not impressed. In a free marketplace, do insurance companies compete with obese-governments, or not? If you can somehow justify a "not," then I'm wrong. Otherwise, I stand by my words about this socialism, even if the biased news media doesn't want to call it socialism.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Journalistic Cesspool that is CNN
November 29, 2007 - 10:42 ET by third eyeNo serious news-watcher bothers themselves with CNN, and for good reason. Look I don’t envy Anderson Cooper's role in this charade of Objective Journalism that passes for Political Theater, at least on CNN, but this was a debate only the Katie Couric’s of the world could truly appreciate. Political questions of such national importance should not be asked by the Journalistically Uninitiated on such a stage, even in the name of the Youtube Children.
CNN has become an emotional tampon for a very small segment in American Politics whos modus operandi is not to ask relevant questions to further the American Political Conversation, but instead secretly seeks to lecture Conservatives on values they deem to be inconsistent with theirs, and with little tolerance for dissent to boot. Its telling when CNN at the start of the debate went so far as to promise not to use children to make political points -- So much so that despite that, they decided to use a video that did just that as a teaser to open to night.
It’s a sad night in America when this Dr. of Political Nuance must defend himself from the sheer savagery of power hungry losers without power in this rambling orgy of confusion that passes for legitimate debate questioning. Id much rather have Cooper moderate instead of having to listen to some mutant breed of wanna be Jimmy Carter speechwriters masquerading as "Republicans", who crawl out of the woodwork for occasions like this, overcome with some strange desire to be on TV for 15 seconds with more of an interest in lecturing than questioning -- and then applied by CNN in such a manner for maximum Republican embarrassment. But the unintended consquences for CNN's actions make it all worth it to me.
One of these days, someone
November 29, 2007 - 10:47 ET by platypusOne of these days, someone will explain why conservatives are afraid of speaking the truth to frauds like "Brig. Gen." Kerr.
In order for him to get away with his BS, everybody has to pretend that he never violated his oath as a member of the military. It is also necessary to overlook the truth that he decided that lying about his loyalties while he was "serving" was acceptable even though the UCMJ specifically criminalizes his admitted behavior while in uniform.
Kerr is not morally fit to have worn the uniform, he remains morally unfit to wear the uniform, and he certainly is not morally fit to cash his military retirement check every month. The reality that our leaders are gracious enough not to charge him with perjury or conduct unbecoming an officer does not excuse his duplicitous character.
Just another reason why CNN
November 29, 2007 - 12:14 ET by buddycJust another reason why CNN is so bad. I am not one who believes for a momemt that that they didn't know. Their response is pathetic. Where is the government in this? When are they going to enforce campaign finance laws against CNN? You know those wonderful campaign finance laws that McCain gave us. The ones that are suppose to take out the influence of money in campaigns.
unconscious selection
November 30, 2007 - 00:34 ET by redfishThe only thing dodgy in the debate wasn't the fact that many of the questions were asked by Democrat supporters. When 2 questions were used to confont the candidates on the Bible, and 2 more on gay issues, and then the General not only asks a question, but is given some time to give a speech when predictably, he was disatisfied with the answers, it looks like the debate was oriented around asking questions Democrats would like to hammer to Republicans, and not questions Republican primary voters are interested in.
But not only was this not useful for the primary process, it also constitutes a political ambush for Democratic purposes. Some of the questions were fair questions that would be asked in the course of the campaign, however I'm sure many candidates were also caught off guard and felt like it was a Democratic ambush. Added to that it felt that the questions were staged to frame the issues. When Cooper Anderson, for instance, pressed Huckabee to answer the question in the format of what specifically Jesus would do and not what he thinks, I rolled my eyes. The only possible answer is what Huckabee gave---remember Christ says "render unto caesar that which is caesar's"? Then, speaking time was given to the general as if he were a member of the debate. It felt like the framing of the debate was to hammer Republicans in an abush, which because it was one sided, would be helpful for Democrats in the general election.
I don't however think it was a plot. I think CNN looking for questions they thought were relevant, looked for questions Democrats would want to ask of Republicans, and so, unconsciously, what they ended up was with questioners who were covert Democrats. The people who asked the questions they wanted asked, were, surprise : Democrats. I would really now want to see the other questions submitted, to look through to see if there were any serious Republican questions that would have been better and more relevant.