The Plant

I would like to know about all these "hecklers" that magically appear at Hillary's or Bill's events.

Iron my shirts...9/11 conspiracy. They both had very pat, rehersed answers to those comments. Hillary didn't even blink on hers...Bill had to strain to hear the guy...then he just happened to know exactly how many MUSLIMS died on 9/11.

I have serious doubts that either event was random. Sounds very much like plants to me.

I've listened to alot of other stump speeches and haven't heard any hecklers with any other candidate.

I see that some libs are turning this around, the issue is that CNN put them up as Republicans that were undecided! That is the issue at hand not whether a Dem can ask a republican a question or not. Why did these poeple and CNN have to hide who they were.

CNN spent money and time to get the gentleman from Clintons campaign there but did not take the minute to look up him on google, and the other three please.

And also this is the primary they do not vote in the republican primary , so that is an issue too.

The Clinton News Network (CNN) failed. They showed there lib bias and so did the other stations that did not report it as it is.

This was Fraud, Representing someone or something you are not and those libs commited fraud. But I guess Fraud runs rampant in the Lib/Dem Party, het they get promoted for it.

To Rick: hear! hear! You put into better words exactly what I was trying to say. That is exactly the point. What CNN did is what the Dems claim Fox would have pulled on them and why they didn't show up on Fox! So why is it "Fox is evil" but "CNN is pure-as-snow impartial"? It's the hypocrisy that is so blatant that gets me. I am still waiting to hear the apologists of CNN to be honest here and say, "ok, ok... yes I hate Fox for what they represent, but yes, ok, I agree, CNN is left-leaning and bias in favor of the Dems". It is so clear to everyone now - a little honesty please.

Any and every American has the right to ask the Republican candidates for President their position on a topic. I don't think that's really the question here. What the point is that the Republicans were subjected to what the Democrats claimed they would be subjected to had they particpated in a debate hosted by Fox. For all the premature accusations against Fox news for how they would have handled a debate with the Democratic candidates, obviously CNN wasn't able to handle it any better. At least the Republican candidates had the courage to particpate, which is more than can be said of the Democrats.

CNN was entirely even-handed. They asked question of the Democrats that made Democrats look good. And they asked questions of the Republicans that made Democrats look good. no questions on the war on terror - that would be unfair, because it would make Dems look bad, and Republicans look good. And that wouldn't be fair to the good guys.

CLINTON PLANTS QUESTIONS AT CNN DEBATE
It turns out that Keith Kerr, retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve, who submitted a YouTube question about gays in the military, is actually a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee. He's also part of a film production crew trying overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. In the final seconds of the post-debate coverage, Anderson Cooper acknowledges that CNN messed this up and states that CNN did not know that Kerr has a position within the Clinton campaign and that had they known, they would have disclosed the association.

I don't fault CNN. I think that the format of the debate inherently posed difficulty for them. YouTube and netroots activism is far more the province of liberals than conservatives (who tend to instead favor top-down message dissemination). It must have been hard to compile sufficient content contributed by actual Republicans to fuel a debate of that length.

Apparently, this is a problem that Republicans, themselves, have faced time and time again, so they ought to be commiserating with CNN, as opposed to criticizing them. For instance, when the NRCC sought anti-Democrat homespun ads from their supporters, they were only able to garner 5 entries after as many weeks of soliciting videos. Similarly, when the Republican National Committee established the MyGOP internet social networking site in an effort to emulate the progressive blogosphere's small-dollar/high volume donation model, the effort ended up losing money.

I think that the GOP Presidential hopefuls should remember that they are vying for the opportunity to serve as the nation's President, and as such, no issue of significant concern to large segments of the population should be off the table for discussion.

On the discussion over questioner "plants" in the Republican debate, I am incensed. Since when may a registered Democrat NOT be permitted to ask a question of a Republican candidate, or or a registered Republican of a Democrat, for that matter??? I thought we ALL had freedom of speech, ALL had a voice in government, ALL were free to question our leaders, much less our would-be leaders??? The moderators of debates are supposed to choose a variety of meaningful questions. Who cares who asked those questions??? Finally, let us not forget the wonderful "town hall" meetings held by President Bush for which all attendees were carefully screened for their political bias.
This is America. If I want a question answered from a candidate, ANY candidate, he/she very well BETTER answer it if he/she wants MY vote.

Battleforcebulldog, that is a fine question (though the slippery slope you take to its conclusion is either irrelevant or preposterous). And whether it is a "Republican" question or a "Democratic" one, I'd like to know what the candidates have to say. That is my point and that is James Danley's point, too.

Jake I think you are off base.You say nothing about the guy who held up the Bible and asked the candidates if they believed every word written it, or how about the kid with the stars&bars flag and a "Vendetta" bust in his bedroom just for starters? Did anyone look up their party affliation? No, you can't have it both ways.I politics everyone has an axe to grind.

I think there's a slippery slope here. As in, why stop with prohibiting political activists from submitting questions. Why not everyone with a bias?

Fox News - is no challenge. I watch Fox News and what is the big deal! They are Republican, who cares? There are moments that the one reporter is shady - what's his name Bill O'Reily is arrogant and all into himself. He is ridiculous! I watch their morning program - it has moments of humor. CNN is Democrat! Who cares! Fox News is Republican - Who Cares! The media as a whole loses credibility and it will not be long before everyone starts ignoring these programs. Why? Because both networks are biased - everyone knows this. People get tired of the same old same old......

This is politics – it’s only going to get dirtier. I am sure there were many other Democrat videos submitted from other candidates. Who cares about the videos submitted the questions - it really is about connecting with the American people. It really is about their presence or lack of while on stage. It really is about their answers to the questions. Sometimes you have to go with the flow when given a curved ball – some were able to handle the curve ball. McCain showed signs of humor – while Mitt & Rudy fought like teenagers. Frankly, the only important issue was connecting with the American people –a few candidates did, most did not.

For the person that wanted a question for the Democrat Party, here is one.

Social Security started out as a 5% payroll tax. It is now a 14% payroll tax. It only took it 75 years to almost triple. The Democrat Party wants to "solve" Social Security by increasing taxes. At the current rate, Social Security will be a 100% payroll tax in 139 years.

Mr./Mrs. Candidate what is your plan to solve Social Security so my grandchildren will have it in 139 years? I am assuming that you can only tax 100%.

Well said, James Danley.

CNN=CLINTON NEWS NETWORK
ABC=ALL 'BOUT CLINTON?
seems like it, i see her and bills names on here a whole lot.

Some believe the questions asked especially about gays were the very best questions to bring positions on the most important issues that will be facing the next president.
Wow, I simple can't believe they can be helped. It was stated by Anderson that as many a 1500 questions were submitted from which CNN chose the few. It is true that everybody should be allowed to submit their questions, but who invited the Gay retired General to be in attendance? If not invited by CNN, who gave out tickets and when? Why if he was present did he have the opportunity to respond????
BAD JOB CNN, you should apologize for your inepness or glaring bias.

As a conservative Republican, I don't have a problem with the questions that were asked last night. While the debate was billed as a Republican debate, I don't recall anyone stating that only Republicans could submit questions. Even if these were questions on so-called Democratic issues, whoever is the Republican nominee will have to answer them eventually during the general election. It's one thing (not a problem) for a supporter of a Democratic candidate to ask the Republican candidates a question without a disclaimer. But it's quite another (a minor problem) for Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr, who is a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans for Hillary Steering Committee. Had CNN done their homework (taking 2 seconds to Google his name) and then identified him as such, then I would not have had a problem with using his YouTube question.

The MEDIA is biased against everybody.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

remember CNN stands for Clinton Not-so-worthy News